RE: DNSO / ICANN Funding Model Paper, Version 0.1

[cgomes@internic.net]

Kent,

I probably should have worded my questions more carefully.
I intended them to generate discussion, not to criticize
what was done.  Should SOs fund ICANN?  I think not.  Should
SOs be self-funded?  I think so.  Should registries fund
ICANN?  I think so.

What are your thoughts on these questions?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 9:04 AM
To: discuss@dnso.org
Subject: Re: DNSO / ICANN Funding Model Paper, Version 0.1


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