RE: [nc-budget] DNSO costs - agenda item Wed 21 Nov

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I have been a strong proponent of ICANN funding for the SO
activities/including policy development support/coordination.  I understand,
as we all should, that will mean that funding will need to be offered to all
SOs --  however, each SO operates differently, and that can be taken into
consideration.

I am not really concerned about "independence" in any case. 

Taking this approach would mean that fees collected from the constituencies
can be then spent within the constituency to support constituency
functioning, outreach, policy development within the constituency, etc.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:42 AM
To: NC budget
Subject: Re: [nc-budget] DNSO costs - agenda item Wed 21 Nov


Hi Chuck and all:

Totally agree with Chuck.  

Also I want to add that the NCDNHC is not able to support this
activities in the same way and rithymn as other constituencies are able
to contribute.

However, and although $75000.00 is not enough for cover DNSO expenses,
if ICANN deny us the funding of $150000.00, it would be difficult
to NCDNHC to collect for the year 2002 the part that corresponds to such
constituency.  Also, and if ccTLD constituency declares
indenpendence and becomes ccSO...then costs will be higher for each
constituency (because I suppouse that ccTLD constituency
will not be anymore inside DNSO...am I right?).  

My opinion is that we have to cut expenses and find other creative ways
to perform the activities DNSO needs to do, if ICANN deny us such
funding that Chuck makes reference.

The worrying about budget also is a source of stress for all
constituencies because it prevents them to devote the proper time to
what we are really called to do:  care about DNS technical and policy
matters.  

Best Regards
Vany




--------
Chuck wrote
As most of you recall, I have been one who favors independent financing
of the DNSO because I believe that removes any possible connection
between the
DNSO and its funding source that might influence the ability for the
DNSO to make fully independent policy recommendations.  Philosophically,
my opinions
have not changed on this issue.  At the same time, if others feel
strongly about pursuing ICANN funding, then I think that we should
request sufficient funding
to cover not only the information management (Secretariat) and the
technical services support functions but also enough to fund a full-time
policy
development position.
 
First of all, I believe that $75,000 per year is not enough to cover
basic expenses.  By themselves, the to-be-contracted information
management and
technical services will cost $60,000 per year excluding any travel,
telecommunications and other miscellaneous costs not included in the
$60,000.  As a first
step, we as the budget committee should estimate what our full 2002
budget will look like and make sure that we provide a more accurate
figure than
$75,000.  We should include such expenses as in-person meeting costs,
web-casting of in-person meetings, etc.
 
With regard to policy development area, this is an area in my opinion
that the NC has totally neglected.  The ICANN Bylaws clearly define the
NC's
responsibility to be that of consensus management, but almost no effort
has been made to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure
that
the consensus development processes happen in an objective, measurable
and defensible manner.  Many people are understandably very critical of
the
ineffectiveness of the consensus process within the DNSO and want to
come up with alternative ways to be able to make it easier to reach
consensus, but
very few have been willing to commit the financial or labor resources to
put a clear and workable foundation in place to truly allow the NC to
manage the
consensus process in a nonpolitical and non-arbitrary way.
 
VGRS offered $100,000 in matching funds to support a full-time policy
development position, but the voluntary fund-raising effort is going
nowhere fast. 
There is no evidence that this effort will succeed.   Whether ICANN
structure stays as it is today or changes in the future, there
absolutely must be some
consensus development policies and procedures put in place to provide
the guidance needed for the entire community with regard to how the
process
should work and also to ensure that NC can objectively fulfill its
consensus management role.
 
Consequently, if we decide to recommend ICANN funding of the DNSO, then
I recommend that we include at least $150,000 on top of the the funds
needed
to cover the basic budget.
 
Chuck

------------
-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa