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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Peter,
IMHO there is a very simple way to proceed. We write an ICANN Business Plan.
What does the ICANN does, for who, with who, for which cost, for what return,
in competition with who, with which portential allies.

 From here you will immediately see how the ICANN must be structured and
how it must be governed.

I strated doing it (it helped a lot in my http://icann-fra.org response for 
the
@large) in responding to Mike Roberts document regarding ccTLD financila
aspects. But that contradicted Peter Dengate Trush appraoch of a flat rate.

Now I understand you may want to consider the things differently.

IMHO, the ICANN has to be run as a cooperative business and make enough
money to foot its bills without going and selling itself inplaying competition
between GAC and SAIC/IBM/ATT.

The cost of doing that work is minimal. It would free so many business
opportunities just be establishing sound rules of the game that many
people and businesses would be ready to invest themselves there.

Jefsey





On 07:08 08/01/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Your @large fee of $ 10.00 is a good one- although I think it would have to
>be annual, not one time.
>
>of course the @large should administer it.
>
>Just one question, you talk about the costs incurred for administration
>being paid back over time...
>
>Who would finance these costs until they were paid back?  In other words,
>who would pay the Internet connectivity, the technicians running the list
>and web servers, the scribes, etc?
>
>peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:26 AM
>To: Peter de Blanc
>Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-review] View from here - Who pays????????????????
>
>
>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

--
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