Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #708
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 28 2001           Volume 01 : Number 708

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:05:58 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

On 15:47 27/08/01, Eric Dierker said:
>who really and legally owns ICANN.
>Stupid enough for you?

Dear Eric, what they mean stupid is to ask who really *and* legally owns 
the ICANN.
These are two separate issues.
Jefsey

PS. I do not find back on the ICANN site the Accountant General report - 
was it that title? - who discuted the IANA functions aownership by the USG. 
Can someone help?

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:09:03 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 27 Aug 2001, at 5:22, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Please do not fall prey to *it is not our call to make*.
> 
> While I am quite young, I seem to remember history tells us of a time
> when book burning and the rounding up of certain undesirables in Nazi
> Germany was none of our business.  If all ICANN is, is a technical
> coordination body then we are all wasting our time.  *Social* means
> society is using your internet - when they stop you will have nothing
> to coordinate.  I understand some of you are uncomfortable with it but
> in fact social is our most important function!

The point is, I think, Erik, that ICANN should not be making ANY 
social policy at all.  It's the mission creep that will end up 
strangling the use of the net.  We shold not look to expand the 
mission.  We should look to limiting the mission to technical 
aspects only.

Leah
> 
> Eric
> 
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> I should also add that, as you have yourself frequently indicated,
> 
> > there really is <em> nothing </em> that it is "our call to make."
> > I'm also an ISOC member, but that others are working on the matter
> > is no excuse for ICANN not to be.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > Bill, we have here a classic boundary problem. There are a number
> > > of other entities that are taking on the access issues. One of
> > > those that I belong to is the ISOC (www.isoc.org). Also, the ICANN
> > > is supposed to be a technical coordination body. What you advocate
> > > here would constitute mission-creep, because it falls in the realm
> > > of social services. Firstly, I don't think that ICANN can even do
> > > it. That's not the core business. Secondly, the resources aren't
> > > there. Thirdly, it's not our call to make.
> 

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:20:12 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

At 09:29 AM 8/27/2001 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
>Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 6:29:24 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > your right eric ...
>
> > they are stupid questions  !!
>
>I agree.
>
>There are no ownership issues with regard to non-profit entities.

William, Ken, etc.

When did ICANN become a non-profit entity?  Last I read they did not qualify.

Thanks in advance for your help.

:)

~k

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:44:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hi Leah and all:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, L Gallegos wrote:

> I guess my point is that not everyone must be involved.  However,
> those who do have a stake in ICANN policies should have a means to
> participate.  ICANN should ensure that every means of communication is
> available to those with any level of connectivity.   For meetings that
> could mean IRC chat for every part of the meetings, complete
> transcripts of all meetings, news groups, mail lists - whatever it
> takes.
>
> Leah

Totally agree.  And ICANN is doing many of this already!!!

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:34:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 2:20:12 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> At 09:29 AM 8/27/2001 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
>>Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 6:29:24 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> > your right eric ...
>>
>> > they are stupid questions  !!
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>There are no ownership issues with regard to non-profit entities.

> William, Ken, etc.

> When did ICANN become a non-profit entity?  Last I read they did not qualify.

> Thanks in advance for your help.

You are confusing non-profit with qualifying for status where
donations are tax deductible.

The two are very different.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:38:31 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

- --------------65C6CF20481C73EAB4B12A14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.  But it is
> important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be raised to
> accommodate the increased costs.  Donations have served as a way to keep the
> budget lower.
>
> I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any funds
> except for what it collects in fees.  So unless there is a decrease in costs
> in another area, for every increase in expenditures, there needs to be a
> corresponding increase in fees.  Right now the majority of fees are paid by
> registries and registrars so ultimately the fees are paid by registrants.

That's right.  Those who pay for the whole scheme have no voice in it.
Those registries and registrars have voices, but registrants do not.
Could a more self-serving scheme have been conceived by ICANN/
NSI/Verisign? That would be tough to do, but if that troika could have
thought of one, I'm sure it would have been adopted.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues
>
> Hello Chuck,
>
> I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from
> donations.
>
> If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to "Conduct
>
> an active education and outreach program that supports public participation
> in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic
> forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.",
> then
> the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate
> portion of the ICANN budget?"
> --
> 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

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

- --------------65C6CF20481C73EAB4B12A14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Danny,
<p>Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.&nbsp;
But it is
<br>important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be raised
to
<br>accommodate the increased costs.&nbsp; Donations have served as a way
to keep the
<br>budget lower.
<p>I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any
funds
<br>except for what it collects in fees.&nbsp; So unless there is a decrease
in costs
<br>in another area, for every increase in expenditures, there needs to
be a
<br>corresponding increase in fees.&nbsp; Right now the majority of fees
are paid by
<br>registries and registrars so ultimately the fees are paid by registrants.</blockquote>
That's right.&nbsp; Those who pay for the whole scheme have no voice in
it.
<br>Those registries and registrars have voices, but registrants do not.
<br>Could a more self-serving scheme have been conceived by ICANN/
<br>NSI/Verisign? That would be tough to do, but if that <i>troika</i>
could have
<br>thought of one, I'm sure it would have been adopted.
<p>Bill Lovell
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>Chuck
<p>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: [email-masked] [<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM
<br>To: [email-masked]
<br>Cc: [email-masked]
<br>Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues
<p>Hello Chuck,
<p>I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from
<br>donations.
<p>If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to
"Conduct
<p>an active education and outreach program that supports public participation
<br>in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic
<br>forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.",
<br>then
<br>the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate
<br>portion of the ICANN budget?"
<br>--
<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>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;
<p>The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
<br>page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
<br>available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>Part III:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------65C6CF20481C73EAB4B12A14--

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:06:35 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12F33.C634EF40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Of course Bill you are assuming that ICANN and registries and registrars
don't care to hear the voice of registrants.  I would suggest that that type
of approach is a good going-out-of business model, at least for commercial
registries and registrars if not for ICANN and noncommercial registries and
registrars.
 
And please don't interpret this to mean that I do not think that individual
domain name holders should not have a more direct voice.
 
Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

  

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote: 

Danny, 

Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.  But it is 
important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be raised to 
accommodate the increased costs.  Donations have served as a way to keep the

budget lower. 

I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any funds 
except for what it collects in fees.  So unless there is a decrease in costs

in another area, for every increase in expenditures, there needs to be a 
corresponding increase in fees.  Right now the majority of fees are paid by 
registries and registrars so ultimately the fees are paid by registrants.

That's right.  Those who pay for the whole scheme have no voice in it. 
Those registries and registrars have voices, but registrants do not. 
Could a more self-serving scheme have been conceived by ICANN/ 
NSI/Verisign? That would be tough to do, but if that troika could have 
thought of one, I'm sure it would have been adopted. 

Bill Lovell 

  

Chuck 

- -----Original Message----- 
From: [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM 
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues 

Hello Chuck, 

I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from 
donations. 

If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to "Conduct

an active education and outreach program that supports public participation 
in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic 
forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.", 
then 
the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate 
portion of the ICANN budget?" 
- -- 
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
<http://www.dnso.org/archives.html> 

- -- 

The URLs for Best Practices: 
DNSO Citation: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html>  
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001: 
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This 
page also includes much else about the DNSO.) 
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html>  
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf>  
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader, 
available for free down load at 
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
<http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html> .) 
Part III: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html>  

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12F33.C634EF40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=914091420-27082001>Of course Bill you are assuming that ICANN 
and registries and registrars don't care to hear the voice of registrants.&nbsp; 
I would suggest that that type of approach is a good going-out-of business 
model, at least for commercial registries and registrars if not for ICANN and 
noncommercial registries and registrars.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=914091420-27082001></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=914091420-27082001>And please don't interpret this to mean that 
I do not think that individual domain name holders should not have a more direct 
voice.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=914091420-27082001></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=914091420-27082001>Chuck</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William S. Lovell 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 27, 2001 3:39 
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]'; 
  [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding 
  Issues<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>&nbsp; 
  <P>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote: 
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Danny, 
    <P>Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.&nbsp; But 
    it is <BR>important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be 
    raised to <BR>accommodate the increased costs.&nbsp; Donations have served 
    as a way to keep the <BR>budget lower. 
    <P>I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any 
    funds <BR>except for what it collects in fees.&nbsp; So unless there is a 
    decrease in costs <BR>in another area, for every increase in expenditures, 
    there needs to be a <BR>corresponding increase in fees.&nbsp; Right now the 
    majority of fees are paid by <BR>registries and registrars so ultimately the 
    fees are paid by registrants.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>That's right.&nbsp; Those who 
  pay for the whole scheme have no voice in it. <BR>Those registries and 
  registrars have voices, but registrants do not. <BR>Could a more self-serving 
  scheme have been conceived by ICANN/ <BR>NSI/Verisign? That would be tough to 
  do, but if that <I>troika</I> could have <BR>thought of one, I'm sure it would 
  have been adopted. 
  <P>Bill Lovell 
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">&nbsp; 
    <P>Chuck 
    <P>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: [email-masked] [<A 
    href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>] <BR>Sent: 
    Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM <BR>To: [email-masked] <BR>Cc: 
    [email-masked] <BR>Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues 
    <P>Hello Chuck, 
    <P>I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from 
    <BR>donations. 
    <P>If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to 
    "Conduct 
    <P>an active education and outreach program that supports public 
    participation <BR>in ICANN policy-making activities, including public 
    meetings, electronic <BR>forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), 
    accessible website etc.", <BR>then <BR>the question should really be, "Why 
    isn't this covered by the appropriate <BR>portion of the ICANN budget?" 
    <BR>-- <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></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <P>-- <BR>&nbsp; 
  <P>The URLs for Best Practices: <BR>DNSO Citation: <BR><A 
  href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A> 
  <BR>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001: <BR>Proposal for Best 
  Practices for the DNSO GA." This <BR>page also includes much else about the 
  DNSO.) <BR>Part I: <BR><A 
  href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A> 
  <BR>Part II: <BR><A 
  href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A> 
  <BR>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader, <BR>available 
  for free down load at <BR><A 
  href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.) 
  <BR>Part III: <BR><A 
  href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A> 
  <BR>&nbsp; </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12F33.C634EF40--
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:57:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Chuck, 

What we are looking for is a voice in the process.   The General Assembly (by 
way of a motion passed by over 80% of the membership) has already expressed 
its interest in participating in the Budget process.  At this time, the 
Budget Advisory Committee still consists of only representatives from the 
four constituencies that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding: the Registrars, 
gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries, and RIR constituencies (as per the recent 
letter of Stuart Lynn to the registrars:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01048.html ).

Just because these organizations collect the funds that are submitted to 
ICANN does not justify their participation in the budgetary process to the 
exclusion of the rest of the ICANN community.  

This is like saying that because the IRS is the instrument that collects 
funds from taxpayers, only the IRS should have a say in how much money is 
collected or how such funds should be spent.  

What is clear to me is that as new gTLDs are added to the mix, resulting in 
millions of new domain registrations, the average unit amount paid by each 
gTLD registrar (18 cents) goes down accordingly during these current and 
upcoming fiscal quarters.  

Simply maintaining a static rate per registration would result in additional 
funds to ICANN which could be put to use to provide the services we now lack. 
  No one is seeking to hurt either the registrars or registries, but rather 
we seek to develop an appropriate funding vehicle to sustain the activities 
of the DNSO.  Our input into the Budgetary process might result in 
recommendations that could support this effort.  If we continue to be shut 
out of the advisory process, then we will have to rely on the good will of 
the registries and registrars to look after our best interests.   

That would not be an ideal approach.

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:58:28 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

- --------------89F375BC2A0018AD83CD3CD7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

>  Of course Bill you are assuming that ICANN and registries and
> registrars don't care to hear the voice of registrants.  I would
> suggest that that type of approach is a good going-out-of business
> model, at least for commercial registries and registrars if not for
> ICANN and noncommercial registries and registrars.
>
> Such is no doubt true of commercial registries and registrars, but
> doubtfully so for ICANN.  I strongly suspect that if people could
> figure out a way to put ICANN out of business, they would do so.
> That's why I and tons of other people are working our . . . off to try
> to straighten out ICANN and hence avoid that. If that effort doesn't
> work out, well, we'll join the other effort.
>  And please don't interpret this to mean that I do not think that
> individual domain name holders should not have a more direct
> voice.Chuck
>
> I don't, because I know you do!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

- --------------89F375BC2A0018AD83CD3CD7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;<span class=914091420-27082001>Of course Bill
you are assuming that ICANN and registries and registrars don't care to
hear the voice of registrants.&nbsp; I would suggest that that type of
approach is a good going-out-of business model, at least for commercial
registries and registrars if not for ICANN and noncommercial registries
and registrars.</span>
<p>Such is no doubt true of commercial registries and registrars, but doubtfully
so for ICANN.&nbsp; I strongly suspect that if people could figure out
a way to put ICANN out of business, they would do so.&nbsp; That's why
I and tons of other people are working our . . . off to try to straighten
out ICANN and hence avoid that. If that effort doesn't work out, well,
we'll join the other effort.
<br>&nbsp;<span class=914091420-27082001></span><span class=914091420-27082001>And
please don't interpret this to mean that I do not think that individual
domain name holders should not have a more direct voice.</span><span class=914091420-27082001></span><span class=914091420-27082001>Chuck</span>
<p>I don't, because I know you do!
<p>Thanks,
<p>Bill
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
<br>page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
<br>available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>Part III:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------89F375BC2A0018AD83CD3CD7--

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:21:33 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Danny -

The Budget Group is only one part of the ICANN budget process.  That 
process has been and continues to be open to anyone or any 
organization for participation and contribution.  In the first 
quarter of the calendar year, a Preliminary budget is posted by the 
staff for community review and comment, both electronic and at the 
first quarterly public forum.  Then a proposed budget is posted in 
the second quarter for further review and comment prior to adoption 
by the Board in June.  A public comment website forum is maintained. 
See Appendix B of the Proposed Budget document for the specific 
calendar that was followed this year.

http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm

Stuart Lynn tells me that he intends to accelerate the budget 
development process this coming year, with initial opportunities for 
participation and contribution to begin immediately after the annual 
meeting in Marina del Rey in November.

- - Mike

At 16:57 -0400 8/27/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Chuck,
>
>What we are looking for is a voice in the process.   The General Assembly (by
>way of a motion passed by over 80% of the membership) has already expressed
>its interest in participating in the Budget process.  At this time, the
>Budget Advisory Committee still consists of only representatives from the
>four constituencies that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding: the Registrars,
>gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries, and RIR constituencies (as per the recent
>letter of Stuart Lynn to the registrars: 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01048.html ).
>
>Just because these organizations collect the funds that are submitted to
>ICANN does not justify their participation in the budgetary process to the
>exclusion of the rest of the ICANN community. 
>
>This is like saying that because the IRS is the instrument that collects
>funds from taxpayers, only the IRS should have a say in how much money is
>collected or how such funds should be spent. 
>
>What is clear to me is that as new gTLDs are added to the mix, resulting in
>millions of new domain registrations, the average unit amount paid by each
>gTLD registrar (18 cents) goes down accordingly during these current and
>upcoming fiscal quarters. 
>
>Simply maintaining a static rate per registration would result in additional
>funds to ICANN which could be put to use to provide the services we now lack.
>   No one is seeking to hurt either the registrars or registries, but rather
>we seek to develop an appropriate funding vehicle to sustain the activities
>of the DNSO.  Our input into the Budgetary process might result in
>recommendations that could support this effort.  If we continue to be shut
>out of the advisory process, then we will have to rely on the good will of
>the registries and registrars to look after our best interests.  
>
>That would not be an ideal approach.
>
>
>--
>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

- -- 
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Mike,

upon review of the FY2001-2002 budget I note that there is no provision
for a CTO. For a organization created for technical administration I am
troubled that there are provision for more legal staff such as a
Associate General Counsel or Policy Analysist but no current provision for
a CTO.

I understand that the CTO position was reserved for Jon; however, not
staffing such an important role for a Technical body make it hard to
believe that ICANN is designed for anything but Technical Administration.

could you comment why a CTO wasn't placed while you were president?

thanks,

- -rick

Rick H Wesson
CTO Registrars Constituency
CEO Alice's Registry - An ICANN Accredited Registrar

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Mike Roberts wrote:

> Danny -
>
> The Budget Group is only one part of the ICANN budget process.  That
> process has been and continues to be open to anyone or any
> organization for participation and contribution.  In the first
> quarter of the calendar year, a Preliminary budget is posted by the
> staff for community review and comment, both electronic and at the
> first quarterly public forum.  Then a proposed budget is posted in
> the second quarter for further review and comment prior to adoption
> by the Board in June.  A public comment website forum is maintained.
> See Appendix B of the Proposed Budget document for the specific
> calendar that was followed this year.
>
> http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm
>
> Stuart Lynn tells me that he intends to accelerate the budget
> development process this coming year, with initial opportunities for
> participation and contribution to begin immediately after the annual
> meeting in Marina del Rey in November.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> At 16:57 -0400 8/27/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Chuck,
> >
> >What we are looking for is a voice in the process.   The General Assembly (by
> >way of a motion passed by over 80% of the membership) has already expressed
> >its interest in participating in the Budget process.  At this time, the
> >Budget Advisory Committee still consists of only representatives from the
> >four constituencies that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding: the Registrars,
> >gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries, and RIR constituencies (as per the recent
> >letter of Stuart Lynn to the registrars:
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01048.html ).
> >
> >Just because these organizations collect the funds that are submitted to
> >ICANN does not justify their participation in the budgetary process to the
> >exclusion of the rest of the ICANN community.
> >
> >This is like saying that because the IRS is the instrument that collects
> >funds from taxpayers, only the IRS should have a say in how much money is
> >collected or how such funds should be spent.
> >
> >What is clear to me is that as new gTLDs are added to the mix, resulting in
> >millions of new domain registrations, the average unit amount paid by each
> >gTLD registrar (18 cents) goes down accordingly during these current and
> >upcoming fiscal quarters.
> >
> >Simply maintaining a static rate per registration would result in additional
> >funds to ICANN which could be put to use to provide the services we now lack.
> >   No one is seeking to hurt either the registrars or registries, but rather
> >we seek to develop an appropriate funding vehicle to sustain the activities
> >of the DNSO.  Our input into the Budgetary process might result in
> >recommendations that could support this effort.  If we continue to be shut
> >out of the advisory process, then we will have to rely on the good will of
> >the registries and registrars to look after our best interests.
> >
> >That would not be an ideal approach.
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:54:31 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Rick -

This issue has been debated at length by the Board and executive 
staff.  The original CTO job was created by Jon for himself.   If he 
had lived, the relationship between the reservoir of technical smarts 
inside ICANN versus that resident in the PSO and its constituent 
organizations would have been quite different.

I think the Board and Stuart Lynn have an open mind about the future. 
There are those who prefer that ICANN defer to the PSO in technical 
areas, and there are others who feel that it should have a senior 
person.  At the present time, there is an opening for a senior 
systems manager that is under recruitment.  In another organization, 
it might be called CTO.  In ICANN, given the past, no one wants to 
seem to be putting on airs.

- - Mike

At 17:21 -0700 8/27/01, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>Mike,
>
>upon review of the FY2001-2002 budget I note that there is no provision
>for a CTO. For a organization created for technical administration I am
>troubled that there are provision for more legal staff such as a
>Associate General Counsel or Policy Analysist but no current provision for
>a CTO.
>
>I understand that the CTO position was reserved for Jon; however, not
>staffing such an important role for a Technical body make it hard to
>believe that ICANN is designed for anything but Technical Administration.
>
>could you comment why a CTO wasn't placed while you were president?
>
>thanks,
>
>-rick
>
>Rick H Wesson
>CTO Registrars Constituency
>CEO Alice's Registry - An ICANN Accredited Registrar

- -- 
- --
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 #708
************************