[ga] NCDNHC losing voting rights?

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Harold Feld has submitted the commentary below to the Council list.  At issue 
is whether the Non-Commercial Constituency will (by virtue of a budget 
committee decision) lose their right to vote in the Names Council.  The 
Committee meets tomorrow on this matter.



I wanted to address in advance of our call some of the 
arguments that I have heard pertaining to the non-commercial
response to the show cause.

First, to refresh everyone on the sequence of events.  


The NCC has attempted to comply with the assesment of fees.
Because the NCC has no central body for collection of fees,
the NCC asked the ICANN secretariat to collect the individual 
dues paid by members.  The NCC Adcom believed that this would
be th most efficient mechanism, because the NCC had no othe means of
collecting fees.

the arrangement proved cumbersome.  The ICANN Secretariat can only 
accept payment in US dollars.  this proved a hardship for many
of the NCC members.  Many of the NCC members do not have ready
access to US dollars, and must pay a fee to convert local 
currency into U.S. dollars or to transfer money out of 
their home country.  Administrative problems futher complicated
matters.  these poblems wer aggravated by the inexperience of the
NCC Adcom, none of whom had experience in such matters and all of
whom were thus forced to make best efforts at "on the job
training."

Despite these technical difficulties, the NCC made best efforts 
to satisfy the fee assesment. Adcom sent invoices, and made 
payment of membership fees a condition of voting in the NCC 
elections.

despite these best efforts, the NCC has been unable to satisfy the
NC fees assesed.  Accordingly, the DNSO secretariate transmitted a 
letter requiring the NCC to show cause why its voting rights in
NC should not be suspended.

The NCC Adcom submitted a timely response.  The essence of the response
is that th NCC has done the best it can to satisfy its obligations
to the NC.  As a practical matter, however, it is impossible for the NCC
to comply.  Its members are too poor to provide the necessary funding.  
while some members of the NCC have greater resources than others,
even the larger organizations do not have the resources to "fill the gap."

It therefore lies with the NC to decide whether it wishes to disenfranchise 
noncommercial interests on a permanent basis because they cannot
"pull their weight."  And the disenfranchisement would be permanent,
because the NCC cannot hope to raise the necessary money.  Not now or 
ever.

NCC continues to invoice its "deadbeat" members and to collect a steady 
trickle
of dues.  These are promptly passed from the ICANN Secretariate to the DNSO
Secretariate.  We have investigated possible foundation funding.  None exists.
I have convassed the universe of U.S. foundations that might fund the NCC.
All have refused.

This in part has to do with the nature of foundation funding (I can speak from
personal experience only to the United states, but my colleagues outside the
U.S. inform me that no money exists for this purpose in non-U.S. foundations
either).  Foundations rarely, if ever, fund open-ended "dependencies" of this
nature.  Foundations usually fund tax-exempt entities to erform specific
projects with a concrete result at the end. e.g., produce a study on the 
global
"digital divide" or wire an impoverished community.

Only two U.S. foundations have funded any ICANN or general "Internet 
Governance"
work, Markle and Ford.  Both have *cut back* funding.  I have spoken with
representatives of both organizations and they have informed me that even the
current funding for travel to ICANN meetings will be discontinued.

As an aside, let me address the statement I have heard from others: the 
non-coms
find the money to come to ICANN meetings and stay at the ICANN meeting hotel 
so
they can pay more money for dues.  Most non-coms came to ICANN meetings by
virtue of the Ford-Markle funding to the Salzburg Seminar, which paid for 
travel
and accomodations for non-coms.  that money could NOT be repurposed or spent 
on
anything other than travel and accomodations.  Salzburg made a decision (a
crrect one, I believe) to place non-coms funded at the center of the action 
and
thus housed them at the ICANN designated hotel.

In any event, even this money is gone.  As a result, I may add, there will be
almost no Non-commercial physical presence at Bucharest.  Only by remote
participation will most non-coms be able to provide input.

So there is no money, and there will not be any new money.  We have only what 
we
can wring from our members, who have frankly given all they can afford to give
(and in some cases, more than they can afford, because ICANN participation is
important to them).  the Budget Committee, and the NC, must therefore decide 
if
it values the contributions by the NCC sufficiently to waive the remaining
amount due.

In this reard, let me address a second objection i have heard to finding our
response to the show cause sufficeint: that the NC should "stick to its
policies" and, having adopted a policy, should stick with it.  to this I and 
the
NCC agree.  

the policy adopted, however, explicitly recognizes that there are times when 
it
is appropriate to waive the fees owed.  that is precisely the purpose of a 
"show
cause" proceeding.

deciding that we have shown sufficient cause, therefore, does no violence to 
the
rules.  it does not create any exception, or call for any modification of
anything.  rather, it is a simple application of the existing rule to the
specific case: the NC finds that the NCC has shown adequate cause to excuse 
its
non-payment of remaining dues.

I have argued before, and will do so again, that non-commercial stakeholders 
are
a vital and necessary interest.  many of us represent universities and other
basic research institutions that support advances in the Internet technology. 
Others are leaders in their local internet communities, providing training and
connectivity for their countries' most impoverished citizens.

In addition, we bring a diversity of view point, and one which adds great
legitimacy to the ICANN debate.  ICANN's critics have often charged that it is
captured by special interests.  the presence of the non-commercial 
consticuency
as ful participating members helps to negate that charge.  Given the 
trememdous
interest in international organizations generally to ensure that 
multi-national
processes engae "civil society" interests, the presence of the NCC does much 
to
reasure governments and citizens that ICANN will consider all points of view.

By contrast, disenfranchising the NCC will add fuel to the fire.  especially 
at
a critical juncture such as this, it is imperitive that all voices participate
equally and, more importantly, be perceived by the world as participating 
equally.

If nothing else, I beg that the Budget Committee (and NC members generally)
consider the damage to the ongoing ICANN reform process if the NCC is
disenfranchised at this critical time.  Not only will the NC ad ICANN lack the
full and diverse input of the NCC.  the absence of th NCC will cast a shadow
over ICANN reform generally.  Critics will allege that exclusion of the
non-commercial voices excluded a vital segment of the community, and to the
benefit of "special interests".  Given that the ICANN reform process 
potentially
may require that all consticuencies, and the DNSO itself, may need to
reconstitute itself, forgiving the NCC the difference between what it has
collected and what it still owes will mae little difference in the long run.  
By
contrast, exclusion of the NCC can only have profoundly negative impacts on 
the
reform process.

Harold
Feld
--
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