Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #455
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, May 13 2001             Volume 01 : Number 455

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:21:55 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0DB9E.EA89D0B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000) 

Read this and lets hold them to this letter!

http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm

/Bruce

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBOv60oYtDk+p459CQEQJCRACfXznyIPbK5hCMPIGhZyJvNg1s0YgAoLv7
rSMP8KEXP9Ke/Pvxk6ef/MPS
=t9T5
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0DB9E.EA89D0B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<BR>Hash:=20
SHA1</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August =
2000)=20
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>Read this and lets hold them to this=20
letter!</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm"=
>http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm</A></FO=
NT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>/Bruce</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR>Version: PGP Personal Privacy =
6.5.8</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>iQA/AwUBOv60oYtDk+p459CQEQJCRACfXznyIPbK5hCMPIGhZyJvNg1s0YgAoLv7<BR>=
rSMP8KEXP9Ke/Pvxk6ef/MPS<BR>=3Dt9T5<BR>-----END=20
PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0DB9E.EA89D0B0--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:36:44 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Joop's motions

Joop,

You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group
together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted
both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted
in:

a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address
the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness,
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name
holder's constituency."

b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow
for new constituencies.

c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board.

d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes.

Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?

Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on
behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it
necessary to include this language in your revised motion?

Speaking as an Individual,
Danny

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:17:59 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

Bruce,

Thank you for bringing this document
http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm  to our
attention.  Relevant citations:

"As explained more fully below, the ICANN SOs are consensus-based advisory
bodies within the ICANN framework. The SOs are not independently organized
entities. Rather, they are, in effect, internal ICANN working committees..."

"The Supporting Organizations are not separate legal entities. Rather, they
are loosely structured committees composed of individuals, companies, and
organizations having an interest in the subject matter being addressed by
the SO. Pursuant to their organizational documents, the SOs are
"consensus-based advisory bod[ies] within the ICANN framework."

As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by their
parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
corporation.  To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds received
only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of public
benefit.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:38:30 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000)

So, whom are the three DNSO reps, on the ICANN BoD and whom elected them to
that position?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 9:22 AM
To: GA
Subject: [ga] ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000)

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000) 

Read this and lets hold them to this letter!

http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm

/Bruce

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBOv60oYtDk+p459CQEQJCRACfXznyIPbK5hCMPIGhZyJvNg1s0YgAoLv7
rSMP8KEXP9Ke/Pvxk6ef/MPS
=t9T5
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:50:46 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:17:59PM -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
> working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by their
> parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
> corporation.

Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.  It is perfectly reasonable that an 
internal committee of a nppbc should fund its own activities.

> To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds received
> only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of public
> benefit.

Nonsense.  The issues are completely orthogonal.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:50:11 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga]"Consensus"

I just love it when I ask a question and someone comes back
with a definitive answer. I had asked whether, in the previous
effort to establish an Individual Domain Name Holders
Constituency (or an Individuals Constituency -- IC -- which
is shorter), those behind it had "dropped the ball."  The answer
tells me that "no, they did not -- they got whacked up 'long side
the head with it." (Whether or not the ball also got dropped is
addressed below.)

Danny Younger kindly directed me (actually, all of us) to
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-review-report-17feb01.htm.
Carefully threading through, one then finds this:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html,
which says:
_____
 "Motion by Chris McElroy & David Farrar

 The WG Review has reached a near consensus that a new
Constituency be added  to represent Individual Domain Name
Registrants. This WG has not addressed  the matter of how to
implement this new Constituency, neither has it proposed what
group should represent them, nor how it is to be formed. We
only  present that one should be formed or selected within six
months.We specifically  propose a dedicated working group
be set up to come up with specific proposals and options on
the structure and functioning of the constituency.

We ask that this process be expedited in this way because
we believe it to  be an oversight not to have included them in
the process from the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this
matter would be put on the agenda as a top priority and that
public comment will be sought on how this constituency shall
be formed.

 * * *
______

and:
______
A formal vote was held on the motion below and passed  as follows

 Total number of voters: 22

 NO                        4     18.1818%
 YES                    18      81.8182%
______

Contrasted with that, though, ultimately one also finds this:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html,

within which is the link Task Force Comments.doc -- a document that
makes
very interesting reading.

The American Intellectual Property Association (e.g., read "trademark
lawyers"),
with its asserted 11,000 members, doesn't seem to think much of the GA,
or at
least the Names Council:
______
The Names Council

In the AIPLA’s view, the DNSO Names Council has not lived up to
expectations.
In saying this, we are not unmindful of the tremendous time demands that
the Names
Council activities places on its members; however, the Names Council is,
in our view,
the focal point for the activities conducted by the DNSO. Steps need to
taken to
permit Names Council members to make more effective use of their time in

developing consensus on issues presented to them from the ICANN Board or
arising
from DNSO Constituencies. Perhaps considering techniques to encourage
greater
participation by all members in Names Council deliberations and
developing clear
mandates, procedures, and time lines would contribute to more effective
operation
of the Names Council.
_______

In passing, I note that, if I can trust my handy dandy searcher, the
term
"consensus" appears nowhere in the Bylaws.  Democratic process are
characterized by tumult, and rightly so. However, I also note the
following:

____
Overlap of Constituencies

 The Preliminary Report notes that the internal structures of
Constituencies
differ and that there is considerable overlap between certain
Constituencies.
While the Preliminary Report does not specify which Constituencies
overlap,
it would be our observation that this is true. For this reason, it might
be a useful
first step to undertake a study to determine the extent to which
Constituencies
overlap and to ascertain whether a greater community of interests might
be
achieved with some adjustment of their charters. Until such a review has
been
undertaken, it strikes us as premature to consider creating yet another,

potentially overlapping Constituency as suggested in C. below.

 The Preliminary Report recommends study of Constituency structures
among the various DNSO Constituencies.  The AIPLA questions whether
consistency of Constituency structures is a desirable goal.  Due to the
varying interests of Constituency’s individual needs.  A
“one-size-fits-all”
approach is not recommended, without addressing some specific overall
objective in doing so.

Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency

 For the reasons noted in the preceding topic, the AIPLA does not
believe
that the establishment of an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency

would be advisable at this time, if at all. Initially there is a serious
question of
whether there are any different interests to be represented in such a
Constituency than in the existing Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
Constituency. Until there is a more complete understanding of the
interests
to be represented in the Internet family, precipitous creation of
additional
Constituencies will only lead to demands for an ever increasing number
of narrowly focused Constituencies and an unwieldy Names Council.
_______

All of that, of course, is utter balderdash, and constitutes the "whack
up 'long side
the head" that I mention above.

So the bottom line, as I read this stuff, is that recent efforts to
initiate an IC are
covering old ground already walked on.  Out of that "walk" has evidently
come
a Working Group that is to address the precise issue of the formation of
an
Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency.  So (a) are there any live
bodies
in that WG; (b) if so, who are they; and (c) what are they doing? My own
point
of view is this: I concur wholeheartedly with the part of the motion
which says
"We ask that this process be expedited in this way because we believe it
to be
an oversight not to have included them in the process from the
beginning."  I
wholeheartedly disagree with the AIPLA proposition that "there is a
serious
question of whether there are any different interests to be represented
in such a
Constituency than in the existing Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
Constituency." I doubt seriously whether the interests of Veronica and
her
parents have any relationship whatever with the (and I'm making this one
up)
The American Society of Lapidastarists."

This whole thing is not about reaching conclusions on some substantive
issue,
on which one can reasonably ask whether or not there is a consensus.  It
is
about whether or not some bunch of people will even have a voice, when
some
substantive issue is to be addressed, and at least under the American
system
that question has only one answer.

Bill Lovell

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:48:01 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000)

Thanks Bruce,

I particularly appreciated this part:

"The SOs are  not independently organized entities. Rather, they are, in
effect, internal ICANN working committees whose primary purpose is to
make policy recommendations to ICANN's Board of Directors and to ensure
that those recommendations are made only after receiving input from
members of the Internet community interested in those issues. In
addition, each of the three SOs selects three directors to ICANN's 19
member Board."

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Bruce James wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1 ICANN's Applicant's Letter to IRS (17 August 2000) Read
> this and lets hold them to this
> letter! http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm
>
> /Bruce   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Personal Privacy
> 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBOv60oYtDk+p459CQEQJCRACfXznyIPbK5hCMPIGhZyJvNg1s0YgAoLv7
>
> rSMP8KEXP9Ke/Pvxk6ef/MPS
> =t9T5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:53:04 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry, Kent, Danny does have it correct.

The Attorney's letter to the USG-IRS spells out the they are *dependent* on
ICANN, therefore they must be funded to to their work, attend BoD meetings
for presentations to the BoD.

If the ICANN Attorney's letter is not followed, it may be misrepenstaion to
the USG-IRS.

/Bruce

- - ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 13, 2001 12:50
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:17:59PM -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
> working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by their
> parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
> corporation.

Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.  It is perfectly reasonable that an
internal committee of a nppbc should fund its own activities.

> To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds received
> only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of
public
> benefit.

Nonsense.  The issues are completely orthogonal.

- - --
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- - --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBOv7J/otDk+p459CQEQKYpQCaA40ekQm6yWqsBSyipVQK6cvTojoAoMth
wANSnAdxw8ttsC1cqu0eDBXv
=lnui
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:54:03 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: [ga-ext] Re:  2001-2002 Budget]

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> <snip>Since the dollars drive the action, it would appear just from this
> comparison
> that the "accredited registrars" run ICANN.  Wherein would this conclusion
> be incorrect?  Perhaps one or more of the above listed members of the
> Finance Committee would like to explain all of this to the rest of us, pursuant
> to the above-cited Article III, Section 1, of the Bylaws.  I don't think that
> provision means that things will be posted only after they are a done deal.<snip>

I'd also like to read any Committee members' response to William's query.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:58:00 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: 2001-2002 Budget

Well, I'll get this right yet -- I'm kindly informed that many people
have setups that automatically delete attachments, so my "Forward"
attachment would have got dumped.  Here's the whole thing, FWIW:

"babybows.com" wrote:

> "This is a draft that crept out, the way things creep out," said
Stuart
> Lynn, chief executive of ICANN. "The proposed budget is not being
posted
> yet. It's a working draft of a committee that we've been working on
for four
> months...Someone let it out, and of course everybody gets all involved
with
> it. It's kind of premature."
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5902622.html?tag=lh

>From the article just cited:
______
The preliminary budget was posted last week to a restricted mailing list

for accredited registrars of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
(DNSO). The DNSO advises the ICANN's board on policy issues
relating to the domain name system.
______

And this from the Bylaws:
______
ARTICLE III: TRANSPARENCY AND PROCEDURES

    Section 1. GENERAL

    The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the
maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and
consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.
_______

How are these two to be reconciled?  The use of a  "working draft"
can easily be understood with respect to those working on a budget,
but how is it that only "accredited registrars" have any input on the
budget?

The "Finance Committee" responsible for budget preparation was
formed by the Resolution shown at
http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13dec00.htm
and lists its members as follows:

" . . . that Linda Wilson be, and hereby is, appointed chair of the
Finance Committee, and that  Jonathan Cohen, Helmut Schink, and
Ivan Moura Campos are appointed members of the Finance Committee."

What the Bylaws say about preparing the budget is this:

______
Section 6. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") shall be the chief financial officer

of the Corporation. If required by the Board, the CFO shall give a
bond for the faithful discharge of his or her duties in such form and
with
such surety or sureties as the Board shall determine. The CFO shall
have charge and custody of all the funds of the Corporation and shall
keep or cause to be kept, in books belonging to the Corporation, full
and accurate amounts of all receipts and disbursements, and shall
deposit
all money and other valuable effects in the name of the Corporation in
such depositories as may be designated for that purpose by the Board.
The CFO shall disburse the funds of the Corporation as may be ordered
by the Board or the President and, whenever requested by them, shall
deliver to the Board and the President an account of all his or her
transactions as CFO and of the financial condition of the Corporation.
The CFO shall be responsible for the Corporation's financial planning
and forecasting and shall assist the President in the preparation of the

Corporation's annual budget. The CFO shall coordinate and oversee
the Corporation's funding, including any audits or other reviews of the
Corporation or its Supporting Organizations. The CFO shall be
responsible for all other matters relating to the financial operation of
the
Corporation.
______

And Article XI describes the preparation of the budget as follows:
______
Section 4. ANNUAL BUDGET

The President shall prepare and, at least forty-five (45) days prior to
the
commencement of each fiscal year, submit to the Board, a proposed
annual budget of the Corporation for the next fiscal year. The proposed
budget shall identify anticipated revenue sources and levels and shall,
to
the extent practical, identify anticipated material expense items by
line
item. The Board shall adopt an annual budget and shall publish the
adopted Budget on the Web Site.
______

Since the dollars drive the action, it would appear just from this
comparison
that the "accredited registrars" run ICANN.  Wherein would this
conclusion
be incorrect?  Perhaps one or more of the above listed members of the
Finance Committee would like to explain all of this to the rest of us,
pursuant
to the above-cited Article III, Section 1, of the Bylaws.  I don't think
that
provision means that things will be posted only after they are a done
deal.

Bill Lovell

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:01:42 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>On 13 May 2001, at 10:50, Kent Crispin=
 wrote:

<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 01:17:59PM -=
0400, babybows.com wrote:

> > As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICA=
NN

> > working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by th=
eir

> > parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public bene=
fit

> > corporation.

> 

> Sorry, that doesn't follow at all.  It is perfectly reasonable that an

> internal committee of a nppbc should fund its own activities.

> 

</color>That is just not true.  Please show me organizations that require =
internal 
commiettees to fund themselves.  Show me corporations that require "think =
tanks" 
to fund themselves.  The SO's are not separate corporations with tax-exemp=
t 
status.  They are part of the ICANN and are advisory committees to the 
corporation.  As such, they should be budgeted by the corporation as they 
produce a work product for the corporation.

<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> > To have these bodies operate on th=
e basis of funds received

> > only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of

> > public benefit.

> 

> Nonsense.  The issues are completely orthogonal.

</color>or=B7thog=B7o=B7nal (=F4r-thg-nl) adj. Mathematics Relating to or =
composed of right angles.  

Correct.  The monied special interest groups are certainly recognized and =
closely 
related to ICANN in its present form.  Those who are not monied are 
disenfranchised - the greater community.  That is precisely why the fundin=
g should 
come from the corporation and distributed equally.  The DNSO should be rec=
eiving 
allocations for all participants, including the GA.  It is more compelling=
 for a non-
profit public benefit corp to do this, especially since ICANN claims loudl=
y that it 
takes advice from its SO's.  It just doesn't admit that it pays little or =
no attention to 
the non-coms or the GA and is endeavoring to silence those voices - and th=
e at-
large.  Lip service only so that it appears they are fulfilling their bott=
om-up 
mandate.  

ICANN's actions make the letter grossly inaccurate.

Leah

<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> 

> -- 

> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be

> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

> --

> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.

> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe

> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).

> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:35:25 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

babybows.com wrote:
> As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
> working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by their
> parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
> corporation.

Just to put things in a little historical perspective, those who attended
the early ICANN meetings will recall paying for the room rental costs when
they attended a meeting. I think fees at the DNSO organizational meetings in
Singapore were $50 per person, per day. The room rental costs for four
in-person General Assembly meetings a year, with a participatory webcast,
are now fully funded.

      -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:46:39 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's Letter to the IRS

- --------------01E594EF9C5B3A103A2469DA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Let me concur wholeheartedly with this.  I've posted a couple
of things which seem to suggest (although obviously neither
premise is proven) that the accredited registrars write the budget
and that the American Intellectual Property Law Association
makes the decisions on having an Individual Domain Name
Holders Constituency.  Since the dollars do drive the action,
Danny's premise (as I read it) that no group within ICANN
should be separately funded by special interest groups is
precisely correct.  Search for outside funds should only come
about, and only as a one-time shot, when (a) ICANN has
delegated task X to group Y; (b) task X (e.g., representing
the group at an international meeting, as at Stockholm)
requires money; and (c) ICANN provided no money for
that and the group itself doesn't have any.

How can there be "bottom up" governance when the Directors
are reimbursed for expenses but the worker bees are not?

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> Thank you for bringing this document
> http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm  to our
> attention.  Relevant citations:
>
> "As explained more fully below, the ICANN SOs are consensus-based advisory
> bodies within the ICANN framework. The SOs are not independently organized
> entities. Rather, they are, in effect, internal ICANN working committees..."
>
> "The Supporting Organizations are not separate legal entities. Rather, they
> are loosely structured committees composed of individuals, companies, and
> organizations having an interest in the subject matter being addressed by
> the SO. Pursuant to their organizational documents, the SOs are
> "consensus-based advisory bod[ies] within the ICANN framework."
>
> As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
> working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by their
> parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
> corporation.  To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds received
> only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise of public
> benefit.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------01E594EF9C5B3A103A2469DA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Let me concur wholeheartedly with this.&nbsp; I've posted a couple
<br>of things which seem to suggest (although obviously neither
<br>premise is proven) that the accredited registrars write the budget
<br>and that the American Intellectual Property Law Association
<br>makes the decisions on having an Individual Domain Name
<br>Holders Constituency.&nbsp; Since the dollars do drive the action,
<br>Danny's premise (as I read it) that <i>no</i> group within ICANN
<br>should be separately funded by special interest groups is
<br>precisely correct.&nbsp; Search for outside funds should <i>only</i>
come
<br>about, and only as a one-time shot, when (a) ICANN has
<br>delegated task X to group Y; (b) task X (e.g., representing
<br>the group at an international meeting, as at Stockholm)
<br>requires money; and (c) ICANN provided no money for
<br>that and the group itself doesn't have any.
<p>How can there be "bottom up" governance when the Directors
<br>are reimbursed for expenses but the worker bees are not?
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>"babybows.com" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Bruce,
<p>Thank you for bringing this document
<br><a href="http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm">http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/us/letter-to-IRS-17aug00.htm</a>&nbsp;
to our
<br>attention.&nbsp; Relevant citations:
<p>"As explained more fully below, the ICANN SOs are consensus-based advisory
<br>bodies within the ICANN framework. The SOs are not independently organized
<br>entities. Rather, they are, in effect, internal ICANN working committees..."
<p>"The Supporting Organizations are not separate legal entities. Rather,
they
<br>are loosely structured committees composed of individuals, companies,
and
<br>organizations having an interest in the subject matter being addressed
by
<br>the SO. Pursuant to their organizational documents, the SOs are
<br>"consensus-based advisory bod[ies] within the ICANN framework."
<p>As long as ICANN has represented that SOs are, in effect, internal ICANN
<br>working committees, then these committees should be fully funded by
their
<br>parent body, especially if the parent body is a non-profit public benefit
<br>corporation.&nbsp; To have these bodies operate on the basis of funds
received
<br>only from "special interest groups" is antithetical to the premise
of public
<br>benefit.
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>
</html>

- --------------01E594EF9C5B3A103A2469DA--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #455
************************