Re: [wg-review] Funding the Restructured DNSO

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:49:00 -0500, you wrote:

>The proposed VeriSign agreement calls for a $200 million research and
>development budget which the Registrar Constituency
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00013.doc  has
>recommended be redirected to a Competition Promotion Fund.  

Thanks for posting the link.  The position paper by the Registrars is
excellent and makes a compelling case against the proposed changes.

>In the context
>of the restructuring of the DNSO, the issue of funding requirements has
>already been discussed in some detail in this working group (as the lack of
>funds often represents a barrier to the entry of new representative
>constituencies, and poses an ongoing challenge to certain established
>constituencies with limited resources).    It would be particularly
>appropriate for proponents of new constituencies to forward amendments to
>this proposed VeriSign agreement that would allow for some measure of
>funding to be channeled to ICANN's policy recommending body, the DNSO.

I would be a bit cautious about this.  Verisign and ICANN have made
very clear that no amendments can or will be considered.  In the two
weeks we have available we should concentrate on analysing the
proposal as it stands, not suggesting how we would like it changed
because this is not possible (to my regret).

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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