RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I do not agree about "worthless pledges".

I was /am on the Names Council, and Budget committee, and went thru the
entire process. The fact is, that at least 6 months have gone by with no
contributions to that fund.

The offer was made in good faith, and a lot of time spent on the
admistrative machinations about how to accept and manage the fund. Was
that time wasted? Who knows. If we had not done everything necessary to
"prepare to accept money", we could not now be at this stage - which is
simply that no one is coming forward with donations to be matched.

I DO expect Verigign will match the donations to date, as small as they
may be.

Peter de Blanc
.VI

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 PM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org; RCochetti@verisign.com
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn


Danny and all assembly members,

  I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has. Not
really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the ..ORT/.NET
divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
*Pledges* idea...

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Forwarded from the Council list: 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
>
> Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>; "'DNSO Secretariat'" 
> <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
>
> Philip,
>
> Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations 
> made to support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting 
> Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of 
> this note is to advise you, with some regret, that the offer is hereby

> withdrawn.
>
> We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the 
> DNSO and the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased 
> resources, while not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would 
> go a long way towards ensuring the competent functioning of the 
> Council and the provision to it of more and better-researched 
> information.  In particular, we thought that increased resources 
> would:
> * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in
> developing and implementing well defined processes and procedures to
> facilitate its consensus management role
> * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount
> of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
> constituencies, etc.
> * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role
> of managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
> increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
>
> To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made by 
> any company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the offer 
> was first made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount of work 
> was actually done by Names Council committees to design a neutral 
> structure to administer whatever funds were received.
>
> Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received 
> except from a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  This 
> is all the more disappointing given the fact that quite a few 
> companies who are several times larger than VeriSign have employees 
> who sit on the Names Council and participate in most of its 
> committees; and that there are now nearly 100 gTLD registrars, eight 
> gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators, and hundreds of 
> ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name registration

> services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite large, so 
> their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been 
> clear.
>
> Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a 
> result of organizations not being willing or able to make them but 
> rather a result of the fact that the NC itself never promoted this 
> offer.  It is our opinion that it is critical to create and implement 
> processes and procedures to facilitate the NC's consensus management 
> role in an objective manner.  So it seems unfortunate that the NC has 
> never taken any meaningful action to establish objective, 
> community-wide consensus management processes.
>
> After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost 
> two years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not 
> work.
>
> Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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