Re: [ga] Re: Austerity Measures

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Thanks much, Danny. I figured you'd come back with something
like this. So here's plan B:

It seems to be shown that domain name issues are handled by the
Board not in the public interest but rather at the behest of the special
interest groups to which you refer.  As to us "publicans," no funds
are budgeted for an annual election, the purported Domain Name
Supporting Organization, "advisory" to the Board, likewise
receives no funding and will be selling pencils on street corners
even to get someone to Stockholm. The Board allows a resolution
on the issue, but the NC then (so far as I've been able to find out)
just sits on it.  Seems to me the time has come for some California
resident (which I am not) to fire off to the California Attorney
General the evidence of this, such as that you have just layed out,
and request that suit be filed by the AG against ICANN on the
grounds that it is not acting properly under the law by which it was
formed. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) at the outset;
Injunction to come later; and finally a Court Order naming ICANN
and its Officers and Directors directing them how ICANN must
conduct itself or else lose its ticket to the parade.

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Bill,
>
> The Names Council adopted the Report of its Budget Committee
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00318.html relevant
> citation below:
>
> >From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to representatives of
> Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or its agent by:
>
> ** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another invoice
>
> ** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
> delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website
>
> ** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" (in which they
> are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights in the Names Council
> should not be suspended) and they are charged a 5% late payment fee to cover
> the cost to the DNSO of the cost of money.  The 5% penalty is added to that
> Constituency's dues for the next (not the current) DNSO budget year.
>
> ** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and charged an
> additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a added payment for
> their next year's DNSO dues
>
> ** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to participate, of that
> Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are suspended until such
> time as the DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the
> varies late payment fees.
> -----------------------------------
>
> As the DNSO is an internal committee of ICANN that the Board has chosen not
> to fund, it becomes necessary for the DNSO to pay for its own costs from
> funds put forth by the special interests that participate as voting members
> on the NC.  Some constituencies do not appear to have the ability to meet
> this funding obligation... I believe that the Non-Commercial must raise
> $29,000 within the next half year or they will forfeit their right to vote
> (one of their representatives can probably give you the exact amount).
>
> This funding requirement not only threatens several existing constituencies,
> but it also poses a barrier to entry for new constituencies.  If we ever
> succeed in obtaining an Individual's Constituency, there is every likelihood
> that this constituency might not be able to meet the funding obligation and
> thereby join the ranks of other constituencies without the right to vote.
>
> This ultimately means that domain name policy issues will be voted upon by a
> group that is not reasonably representative of the whole of the Internet
> community.
>
> We should be asking, why is the work of this internal committee (the DNSO)
> not funded by ICANN, while other committees are funded.  Why is ICANN
> spending $450,000 on a committee to study how to kill off the at-Large, and
> not one penny for a committee that is charged with determining community
> consensus on domain name policy issues?  I guess it's more important that
> Board-squatting Directors retain their seats, than that we should be doing
> our work on behalf of the ICANN Board in an efficient and representative
> manner.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html