<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] NC telecon, 24 January 2001, minutes
I just thought I would voice an opinion for consideration about
constituencies.
Not all constituencies are the same, some are bigger some are smaller, some
are to represent interests that have a lot of money at stake and others
might represent volunteers, non-profit organizations or individuals.
To say you have a bill of $107,600 and divide by the number of
constituencies (either the 7 now or pro-rata) is to ignore the distinction
between the number of groups and the number of people within those groups.
Some might prefer to compare dollars within each group for that comparison.
Each constituency will have a different ability to pay, according to its
members ability to pay. To demand a fixed payment, whether the payment is
constituency membership fees or DNSO dues is running the sever risk that
representation will be excluded to those who may most need it.
The whole goal is bottom up. Collect what is possible, accept what can be
given in excess, a best effort should cover expenses. Collect what can be
paid then *don't spend more*
I urge that everyone who has some webspace (which is probably in the vast
majority of this assembly) put up a page where visitors can make a donation
because it does take money to keep things happening and the smaller the
constituency the more important it will be to be seen and to get general
public support.
For an example donation page feel free to copy http://opendesign.cx/gold.htm
and change to suit your account and link details, many other methods are out
there, if the presumption that representation is going to require $15,371
continues then those without access to lots of money better start worrying
where they will be heard.
Imagine you bleed money out of your constituency, get recognized, pay your
dues, put forward the concerns represented and yet there is not any
certainty about what would happen next. There is nothing preventing the
situation of the following groups (example only but indicative of the lack
of non-commercial representation in the real world) setting up,
IP-lobby,music-recording-lobby,movie-lobby,consumer-goods-makers-lobby,conte
nt-renter-lobby all with lots of common members, all paying lots of money
towards having their voice in as many places as possible. This is of course
getting into the "Education and Outreach"
Anyway I had to get that off my chest, if I am grossly mistaken somewhere
please point it out.
cya, Andrew...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSO Secretariat [SMTP:DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] NC telecon, 24 January 2001, minutes
>
> [ To: council@dnso.org
> [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
>
> [ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010124.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
>
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
> DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 January 2001 - minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 24 January 2001
>
<snip>
> In order to meet expenses amounting to $ 107,600 and
> expecting the number of DNSO Constituency staying unchanged
> (7) due per Constituency for 2001 will amount to $15,371.
>
<list/webserver vs translation snip>
> Ph. Sheppard asked for the clarification as to the increase of
> Constituency dues.
>
> K. Stubbs responded that this budget is based on existing
> Constituencies and any newly formed Constituency will pay its
> due
> on pro rata based conditions.
>
> D. Vandromme reiterated his request, already made at the Marina
> del Rey meeting for a 50% reduction for Non Commercial
> Constituency due.
>
> The NC has taken a note of this request.
>
> L. Touton inquired if there is a practical report on voluntary
> funding.
>
> R. Cocheti recalled the NC decision to accept voluntary
> donations.
> Budget Committee will submit a complete plan on how to employ
> this
> part of the revenue later.
>
> P. Kane suggested that NC examine specific expenses in more
> details and takes budget expenses listed here as information.
>
> R. Cochetti restated that these are only budgetary category
> items,
> and when the NC will have a professional support the more
> specific
> financial reports will be provided regularly.
>
> First attempt to vote on the budget failed and those who have
> abstained provided explanation of their vote:
> + D. Vandromme: cannot commit the Non Commercial constituency
> with such a high due.
> + Ph. Sheppard: Budget Committee reached a decision in
> principle on an assumption to collect the 2001 dues from
> the
> Constituencies who have not paid their 2000 dues yet.
> + H. Hotta: due to his late arrival has not had a chance to
> follow a discussion.
>
> E. Roberts suggested taking separate votes on constituencies'
> dues
> and on indicative budget for year 2001.
>
> R. Cochetti disagreed explaining that those two points are
> linked
> as we have to start collecting the money and start sending out
> invoices for year 2001.
>
> K. Stubbs called the NC to vote on a Budget Committee report:
>
> The motion did not pass: with 7 votes in favour (de Blanc,
> Porteneuve, Caray, Cochetti, Stubbs, Chicoine, Aus der Muhlen),
> 9
> abstentions (Sheppard, Hotta, Harris, Schneider (by proxy)
> Swinehart, Roberts, Kane, Park, Vandromme), and no vote against.
>
<big snip of the rest>
------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other
use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete
the material from your system. Logica is not responsible for any
changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for
the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|