RE: [nc-budget] Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses of DNSO

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Milton,

Whether or not it is "illegitimate and bad policy to link budgetary matters
to representation rights," the fact remains that up to now nothing else has
motivated responsiveness to the problem.  Linking payment of fees to
anything else would probably be meaningless because the only thing that
really matters to constituencies is the right to vote.  I don't believe
anyone on the NC really wanted to do this, but nothing else seemed to work.
The bottom line is that too much time has been wasted on this issue and the
NC has been restricted in committing funds because of the uncertainty of
income.

Also, I think it is seriously inaccurate to refer to the fees established as
"arbitrary."

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:15 PM
To: kstubbs@digitel.net; nc-budget@dnso.org; vany@sdnp.org.pa
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-budget] Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to
lower the expenses of DNSO


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. 

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.

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).

It would be wiser to link non-payment, if it occurs, to denial of other
services. 

>>> 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