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

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/8/01 12:16:25 AM, "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> wrote:

>The issues of money will always be there (here).
>
>There is a cost of maintaining these forums, web servers, lists, scribes,
>minutes, administration, etc.

There's also a cost in participating, let's not forget that please.  I'm not getting paid to be here.

>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" ?

Do you mean to say that though others decide the DNSO needs to be re-organized, the DNSO will do the re-organization?  What's the purpose of any 
review process then?

>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.

How about all the people who "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 do not reach into their own pockets?  What makes them any more 
legitimate?  As Elizabeth Portneuve pointed out, there are four Constituencies who do not pay, and yet are represented.  Who's paying to keep them in 
the "game"?   

>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.

OK, you make a good point.  Let's see, in a DNSO which should ultimately be `inclusive' enought to give more than a lip service "ear" to all 158,000 
current (and the myriads to follow) ICANN @Large Members, if say, a one-time @Large Membership fee were instituted at perhaps the reasonable(?) sum 
of 10 dollars a head, I believe the @Large Membership would be better able to assuage your (and anybody else's) concerns over their representation 
costs.  Of course, I also believe that such a fund MUST only be managed by the @Large Membership itself, under their own organization.  In other 
words, no ICANN appointments.  Whatever costs incurred by ICANN for assisting in the organization process, will of course be paid back over time by the 
@Large Membership Fund.  The issue of what exactly the "representation cost" on the DNSO should be is one which is outside the scope of this tiny 
posting.

>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.
>

Here's a thought which popped into my head as I read this part... How about if the four constituencies -who currently DO NOT PAY (and have not to-
date) for their representation and status within the DNSO organization- be asked to pay retroactive "dues" for their involvement in heretofore process and 
policy?  I wonder how that would go over?  just a thought...

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

One thing's got nothing to do with the other.  If a proper definition of what a domain name had been laid out to begin with (as Jon Postel basically spelled 
it out in his original draft), none of these `unfortunate' scenarios would be occuring.  Although, I'm sure the lawyers aren't complaining...  But, I'm glad to 
see that this issue concerns you... I think?

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

"Special" interest groups?  Got any examples for us?  what exactly are their interests?  just money-collecting?

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

I agree, but where would government AND business be without the INDIVIDUALS who are the bottom line in any ECONOMIC REPORT, and who create 
the wealth collected by others through their INDIVIDUAL labours?  Some HUMAN BEINGS do not consider themselves as RESOURCES to be taken for 
granted by "special interests".  It's INDIVIDUALS who ultimately vote with their dollars, let's not forget that, and let's all be respectful of it.  

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

Agreed.

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

Again, I agree.

But who is going to tell us how we should do it?  Even the President of the United States of America is put into power by VOTES!  

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

I don't think so, in fact, I think you addressed some pretty important issues.  I, for one, was glad to hear your viewspoint.  


Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.




--
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