Re: [wg-review] Funding the Restructured DNSO

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

This issue is quite important. But my feeling is that the magnitude
of the amount hides the purpose of the amount.

I read it as follows:

- $ 5 are dedicated to the OrgNIC non profit association to be created.
   Most probably an organization sharing Staff with iCANN - at least in
   part (like IANA) a providing funding to a Staff continuity and extension.
   Execpt that Staff being self-sbusidized will become the seed of a new
   NSI and will not be manageable by the BoD.

- $ 200 R&D. This funding has no interest if it does not serve the joint
   interest of Staff and VeriSign. I see several areas there:

   -  TLD management monopoly throught DNS proprietary enhancements
      subject to licensing. One of the elements may be DNS security as
      bluntly discussed on most of the ML in august, as if it was a test of
      the community reaction.  The famous "market driven monopoly"

    - Multi-lingual DN management with the alibi of a non-profit offering
      by orgNIC to developping/foreign countries creating a defacto
      "market drivent Multi-Lingual Standard".

    Other matters of same magniture, commercial interest and political
    grip could be proposed. These two have already been advertized
    enough to be public accepted dicussion.

My suggestion would there be for the DNSO not to consider how a
change in the DNSO could result from a tiny part of the budget, but
how the DNSO will accept, discuss and manage the target and the
impact of the intended/probable projects this money is to fund.

Jefsey


On 16:49 16/03/01, Babybows.com said:
>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.  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.
>
>--
>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