RE: [nc-budget] Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions tolowerthe expenses of DNSO

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Interesting that we're having this discussion again..

Just a few observations from glancing over the exchange.. The DNSO has been
in existence now for quite some time, and during this time has operated
almost 100% on volunteers and donations of services by a very limited number
of folks.

Regarding webcasting, my personal view is.. if someone wants to try to find
a webcasting ability that is as efficient, well run, as that provided by the
Berkman folks, get it all set up, and run, fine. But with that comes the
responsibility of making sure it runs, and folks participating remotely and
in-room get what is needed. Note that the last several DNSO/NC meetings,
remote participation was well over 100 and increasing.. a great development
which should be encouraged!

Just my thoughts. I'm happy to engage in addressing the issues, but I think
we need to avoid a repeat of discussions that have already occurred several
times and for which many hours of NC calls were spent.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: nc-budget@dnso.org
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-budget] Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to
> lowerthe expenses of DNSO
>
>
> Hi Milton and all:
>
> El vie, 20 abr 2001, Milton Mueller escribió:
> > KEN:
> > We need to separate three distinct issues.
> >
> > 1. Contributions
> > Should the NCDNHC contribute its fair share to the support of
> DNSO operations? Yes. I am taking efforts to rectify the long
> neglect of this topic by the NCDNHC. But it will take time.
> Yes, we are making plannifications to form a Fund Raising
> Commitee in order to
> Educate and create conscience amongst our members the importance
> of paying (not
> because the voting rights) and all the services that benefits the
> constituencies.
>
> > 2. The DNSO budget
> > It is not clear to me or to many other people that the basic
> hosting and secretariat services require a budget around US$
> 130,000. This function MUST be submitted to an open, competitive
> bid to obtain the best services at the best price. I suspect that
> we could find the same services at half the price. I know that my
> own institution and several others, given $60,000 per year, could
> easily do so.
> Exactly Milton.  And maybe less depending on the country and the
> cost of life
> of such country.
>
> > 3. Voting rights.
> > It is illegitimate and bad policy to link budgetary matters to
> representation rights. DNSO is supposed to be a representative
> body. Nothing in the ICANN by-laws or the White Paper suggests
> that representation hinges on paying some arbirrarily defined
> fee. Linking those two could cause ICANN serious legal and
> political problems. (That is not an idle threat).
> Exactly.    PSO, for example, amongst its rules is clear that no
> mandatory fee
> will be asked to its members.  And they have a Secretariat.
>
> > It would be wiser to link non-payment, if it occurs, to denial
> of other services.
> Not a solution.   Many voting activities takes
> place online and by teleconforences.   A denial of services that
> involves the
> any voting activity, would be obstructing rights to vote.
>
> All what I am proposing are Solutions for funding the DNSO and
> cover operation
> costs without engage the pockets of the organizations that the
> major source of
> income are donations and services that are not earnings, just covering
> operation costs.  The DNSO has a task to ensure equity and open
> participation
> of all stakeholders in policy making inside ICANN.  For sure, if
> DNSO implements
> mandatory payments to constituencies and obstructing its voting
> rights, also it
> is against the Spirit of ICANN By-Laws and DNSO mission.
>
> However, we are making all efforst in our hands to pay our debts.
>  As Milton
> expressed it and I also, this is a compromise.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
> > >>> Digitel - Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net> 04/20/01 01:58PM >>>
> > i am sorry vany ....but i can not support this motion  or your
> position on
> > this issue ..
> >
> >  the ncdnh constituancy has amongst it many large institutions who could
> > qualify for membership. it is necessary for your group to "reach out" to
> > these parties to support the constituancy just as people reach out for
> > support for travel subsidies to attend ICANN meetings in the past.
> >
> > over the past 2 years i have seen minimal efforts on the part
> of the NCDNH
> > to actively solicit members for contributions..
> >
> > the amount of $ requested in the past has been minimal and it
> would seem to
> > me that parties who have expressed a strong interest for advocacy for
> > non-commercial interests have got to provide the funds to support this
> > advocacy..
> >
> > i feel very strongly about this principle. the general assembly is being
> > subsidized and that seems most fair to me . i do not see the
> necessity nor
> > do i feel any desire to subsidize yours or any other  constituancy.
> >
> > 1. non commercial interests include..
> >
> > trade associations
> > educational institutions
> > advocacy groups
> > charitable institutions etc....
> >
> > i am certain that many or these organizations would be happy to
> support the
> > constituancy if an organized campaign was initiated.
> >
> > thats my position and these are my feelings
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
> > To: <nc-budget@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <council@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:28 PM
> > Subject: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to lower the
> expenses of
> > DNSO
> >
> >
> > > Dear fellows:
> > >
> > > There has been a motion to take away voting rights for those
> > constituencies
> > > that doesn't contribute with DNSO expenses.   It is
> unaceptable from any
> > point
> > > of view to take such action, since it seems like every year
> DNSO expenses
> > > increases and it is not true that every year every
> constituency will be
> > able to
> > > collect its part.
> > >
> > > Also it is not acceptable that participants of the DNSO has
> to pay if they
> > want
> > > to assure representation and voting rights.  This is not the spirit of
> > ICANN
> > > By-Laws.  And, in my understanding, the ICANN By-Laws are the
> ones that
> > grants
> > > voting rights to the NC representatives, not the abilitiy to share any
> > expenses
> > > that DNSO incurr.
> > >
> > > Under this light, I have the following motion:
> > >
> > > "The Names Council will engange to find alternative solutions
> of covering
> > > expenses, in order to assure an open participation of all
> stakeholders in
> > the
> > > ICANN policy making".
> > >
> > > Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses of DNSO
> > >
> > > 1.   Instead of sharing costs amongst the constituency,
> simply works in a
> > > donation basis.
> > >
> > > 2.  Draft projects to different donations entities.  The
> following is the
> > URL of
> > > the Infodev and the DNSO fits very well in the Consensus Building
> > Component
> > > http://www.infodev.org/projects/apply.htm
> > >
> > > 3.  Search sponsors for services usually hired by DNSO
> > >
> > > 4.  There are services that not need to be hired foreign team (for
> > example, the
> > > webcasting is done by the Berkman Center which has high cost
> for perfoming
> > this
> > > service simply because they have to travel from one country
> to another).
> > So,
> > > I think it would be interesting to do an experiment of asking for
> > quotations
> > > for the same service to a local team (and searching alternative
> > technologies
> > > less expensive)
> > >
> > > 5.  Sharing responsabilities amongst DNSO participants
> without having to
> > > produce money for pay.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Vany
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > IT Specialist
> > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > > Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
> > > Fax: (507) 230-3455
> > > e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
> > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3455
> e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>