[nc-budget] Tr: [council] Request for Agenda Item, Final Notice to NCDNHC

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Harold J. Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>
To: Names Council (E-mail) <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:29 PM
Subject: [council] Request for Agenda Item, Final Notice to NCDNHC


> Fellow members of the Names Council.
>
> I hope I am not accidentally violating procedure, but I must raise an
> issue of pressing importance to the NCDNHC. I would like to ask us to
address this
> matter on tomorrows conference call meeting.  If we cannot address it
tomorrow, I would like to request that we address it at the April 4 meeting,
although I will be unable to participate in the April 4 conference because
it is a religious holiday.
>
> Unless the NC acts before May 11, the NCDNHC will lose its voting rights
on the NC.
> For the reasons stated below, I request that the NC take official action
to prevent this from happening. Because this raises a difficult issue of
first impression before the NC, I request that the NC vote to "stop the
clock" on the DNSO process for sanctioning consticuencies that have not paid
their dues in full until the face-to-face NC meeting in Bucharest.
>
> As you know, the NCDNHC has had difficulty raising money to pay its DNSO
dues.
> Our constituency received a letter from the DNSO Secretariat on February
1, 2002,
> asking that we show cause why the NC should not suspend the voting rights
of the NCDNHC.
>
> On February 7, 2002, the NCDNHC Adcom replied to the show cause letter.
>  the reply argued: (1) The NCDNHC has made its best efforts to pay the
> dues assessed; (2) suspension of voting rights would hinder NCDNHC
> efforts to collect overdue dues from members and would thus be
> counterproductive; (3) the presence of NCDNHC as voting members enhances
> the DNSO consensus development process, whereas suspending NCDNHC as
> voting members would diminish the effectiveness of the consensus
> process; and, (4) the NC should recognize the difficulty confronting
> NCDNHC in collecting dues and grant relief as a matter of fairness.
>  Several members of the NC posted positive responses to the NCDNHC reply
> to the show cause.
>
> The NCDNHC AdCom mistakenly believed that reply to the show cause
> "stopped the clock" under the DNSO bylaws until the NC acted on the
> reply, deeming it either sufficient or insufficient.  We were therefore
> both surprised and dismayed to receive a "Final Notice" informing us
> that (a) our voting rights will be suspended on May 13, 2002, unless we
> pay the current balance, and (b) total late fees of nearly $1000 have
> been levied against the NCDNHC in accordance with the approved process.
>
> It appears that although the rules provide an opportunity for an overdue
> constituency to show cause why it should not suffer sanctions,
> the process provides no mechanism for determining whether to
> grant relief in response to the show cause order.  As a result, despite
> our reply to the show cause and our continued best efforts to collect
> dues, we find ourselves in danger of losing our voting rights in the NC
> at a critical moment in the development of ICANN as an institution.
>
> Had the Adcom realized this, we would have pressed for a formal
> determination on our reply at Accra or, at the least, asked that the
> procedures under which the reply to the show cause will be evaluated be
> clarified and that the NC "stop the clock" on sanctions against the
> NCDNHC until final action is taken on the reply to the show cause.
>
> In light of the present compressed schedule under which we must reply to
> the Board on restructuring.  I do not propose that the NC should address
> either the NCDNHC show cause response or the question of what procedures
> to employ generally at this time.  Rather, I ask that the NC take action
> to "stop the clock" on the sanction process until the next face-to-face
> meeting in Bucharest.  We can continue to discuss the merits of the
> NCDNHC show cause reply, and what procedures to employ generally,
> on-line until the meeting.
>
> I set forth the following reasons for granting this request.
>
> 1) The NCDNHC has acted and continues to act in good faith.  Owing to
> the confusion resulting from our election almost on the heels of  the
> show cause letter, the lack of any precedent or instruction from the
> Chair or the NC to guide NCDNHC, and the lack of clarity on the
> procedure as adopted, the NCDNHC genuinely thought its response
> sufficient and that no further action was needed on our part to require
> action on our response tot he show cause letter.  In addition, NCDNHC
> has continued to make best efforts to pay the remaining amount required
> by the DNSO.  Since the February 1 letter, NCDNHC has forwarded an
> additional $800 in dues.  NCDNHC continues to remind its members of
> their responsibilities and to collect dues from members that have not yet
paid.
>
> 2) The NCDNHC cannot participate effectively in the structure debate if
> its voting rights will be suspended in the middle of the debate.  This
> matter absorbs a great deal of attention and concern within the NCDNHC.
>  Allowing us to set it aside until Bucharest will allow us to focus on
> the critical issue at hand without the distraction and drain on our
> resources.  Furthermore, several of our members who have paid their dues
> question why they should participate if, after doing all they can do,
> their voice still does not count in the final decision making process.
>
> 3) The consensus process will suffer if NCDNHC's voting rights are
> suspended.  Now, more than ever, it is important that all voices in the
> ICANN consensus process participate on equal terms.  Even more
> importantly, the public must the process as including all relevant
> communities.  If NCDNHC is suspended during the process, it may create
> an appearance that non-commercial voices are disfavored both within the
> non-commercial community (many of whom will therefore chose not to
> participate) and within the public at large even though the suspension
> has nothing to do with restructuring.
>
> I am loathe to add this item at the last minute to tomorrow's conference
> call, but I would request that we resolve this request as quickly as
> possible. If we cannot address it tomorrow, than can it go on the agenda
for April 4?
> My one concern there is that I cannot participate in the April 4 meeting
because it is a religious holiday.
>
> Harold Feld
> NCDNHC
>
>
>
>
>
>