RE: DNSO / ICANN Funding Model Paper, Version 0.1

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

I think the short version of what Kent is saying is that while ICANN's major
funding may come from TLDs via a contractual relationship, there are costs
proper to the administration of the SOs that might come directly from the
SOs themselves.

I don't think the language is so clear that an explanation isn't warranted.
Kent, is this your understanding as well?

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Kent Crispin
> 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
>
>