Re: DNSO / ICANN Funding Model Paper, Version 0.1

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 07:53:02PM -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Why should SOs be concerned with ICANN funding? 

Because the ICANN bylaws we quoted in the paper say that we need to:

  "The application shall include, but not be limited to, a
  description of the following in form and substance acceptable to
  the Board (and a commitment to implement the matters described in
  the application): ...  (vi) methods for funding the Supporting
  Organization and providing funding for the Corporation (consistent
  with Article XI, Section 4 of these Bylaws)."

> SOs should be concerned
> with self-funding their own activities while ICANN should be concerned with
> funding its activities.

The above quoted clause indicates that ICANN is concerned about
funding its activities, and it sees some of those funds coming from
entities that are represented in the SOs.  Put more concretely, the 
avenue for the registries (address and dns) to have policy input 
into ICANN is through the SOs.  So it seems quite reasonable that 
ICANN would want some statement about how that funding is to be provided.

>  It seems to me that ICANN will enter into
> contractual relationships with registries (name and number) and will
> establish funding through those relationships.

Of course.  But you would think that ICANN would want some agreed to 
policy about that funding, before entering into those contracts, 
wouldn't you?

> Because SOs will be making recommendations to ICANN, it seems like there
> would be a possible conflict of interest if the SOs were also funding ICANN.

We didn't say that the SOs would be funding ICANN.  Starting from 
the second sentence in the paper:

  "Each organization has been tasked with defining how funds should
  be collected to pay for ICANN operations.  It is not yet known
  whether ICANN or the SOs will be the agent for the collection of
  these.  In any event, it appears that the majority of funds will be
  collected using models defined by the SOs and approved by the
  Board."

Perhaps when you have a chance to read the paper we could discuss it?

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html