RE: [wg-review] View from here - Who pays????????????????

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

The issues of money will always be there (here).

There is a cost of maintaining these forums, web servers, lists, scribes,
minutes, administration, etc.

Having a "pre-condition" of an organized, well functioning DNSO before the
funding is putting the cart before the horse. Who is going to pay the costs
of operation while we get it "organized" ?

People involved in this process manage to purchase business class tickets,
fly around the world to meetings, stay at upscale hotels, accept the
services, amenities, and comforts that go along with "the experience", and
then claim their constituency "has no money"  "is non-profit", "has already
been taxed by paying for a domain name", etc.

Until there is a way to persuade the money-collecting business interests
such as ISP's and domain name registrars and registries that they should pay
for the sum total of the entire operation - and cover those who wish to "not
pay to play", then, some mechanism needs to be devised that distributes the
costs.

As a ccTLD leader, I have a serious problem justifying ccTLD paying 1/3 of
the entire ICANN budget. And in addition to the ICANN budget, we have our
own ccTLD secretariat to fund, just so we can get and remain organized
enough to participate effectively. I'm sure other constituencies also need a
secretariat.

The DNSO itself needs a secretariat- yet more (necessary) costs.

As a ccTLD manager, I recently witnessed a domain name dispute that resulted
in over US $ 50,000 of legal fees.

Let's face it, a lot of special interest groups are reaping profits (which
is OK with me) in this Internet Business.

Government costs money. It also provides services. the ICANN process is no
different.

We need to devise some way to fairly and equitably pay for the cost of what
we are doing.

And we need more money than that- for outreach, to advertise, stimulate, and
encourage more participation by the stakeholders whos voices we never hear.

This may be off-topic for this WG- but I needed to say it anyway.

Peter de Blanc


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 7:14 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] View from here



Karl Auerbach wrote:
|
| 2. From where I sit the notion of "pay to play" is quite troubling, being
| nothing more than a hidden poll tax.  As Bret pointed out, the business
| interests (who can easily pay the fees to participate) recoup those fees
| from the users of the net who thus end up paying twice.
|
| There is a legitimate question of how one pays for DNSO activities.  (My
| own personal belief is that the DNSO ought to be funded out of the domain
| registration revenues system received by ICANN.  But a pre-condition to
| that would be the re-establishment of the DNSO as a well-functioning
| policy organ.)
|

Hmm, sounds intersting, and recalls me my own ideas, unfortunatelly
rejected by ICANN staff.

I would like to have a system in which a part of domain registration
revenues perceived by ICANN be dedicated to the DNSO functionning.

Actually, 90 percent of ICANN revenues comes from three among seven
DNSO Constituencies (four of them does not pay anything to ICANN)
and the DNSO is the only one Supporting Organization with a GA open
to everybody. It shall deserve some consideration.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html