ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues


Of course Bill you are assuming that ICANN and registries and registrars don't care to hear the voice of registrants.  I would suggest that that type of approach is a good going-out-of business model, at least for commercial registries and registrars if not for ICANN and noncommercial registries and registrars.
 
And please don't interpret this to mean that I do not think that individual domain name holders should not have a more direct voice.
 
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

 

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

Danny,

Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.  But it is
important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be raised to
accommodate the increased costs.  Donations have served as a way to keep the
budget lower.

I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any funds
except for what it collects in fees.  So unless there is a decrease in costs
in another area, for every increase in expenditures, there needs to be a
corresponding increase in fees.  Right now the majority of fees are paid by
registries and registrars so ultimately the fees are paid by registrants.

That's right.  Those who pay for the whole scheme have no voice in it.
Those registries and registrars have voices, but registrants do not.
Could a more self-serving scheme have been conceived by ICANN/
NSI/Verisign? That would be tough to do, but if that troika could have
thought of one, I'm sure it would have been adopted.

Bill Lovell

 

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM
To: cgomes@verisign.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hello Chuck,

I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from
donations.

If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to "Conduct

an active education and outreach program that supports public participation
in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic
forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.",
then
the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate
portion of the ICANN budget?"
--
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

--
 

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>