RE: [council] Follow-up Note on DNSO Funding for L.A. meeting expenses

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Andrew,

I think that charging a meeting fee is a very reasonable - but partial - 
solution.

At the last two NC teleconferences, commitments were made that the Names 
Council members would attempt to persuade their Constituencies to raise 
$5,000 (approx. ? 5,000) each within 30 days of the LA meeting. (There was 
an objection on behalf of the Non Commercial Constituency on the basis of 
ability to pay).

I am now pursuing this with the ccTLD Constituency.

As an example of the seriousness with which I treat these sort of financial 
matters, I am hereby committing that the IE Domain Registry will underwrite 
the ccTLD $5,000 (approx. ?5,000) contribution (without prejudice to any 
future decision that the IE Domain Registry may make on contributing to 
ICANN).

Dennis

On Wednesday, October 06, 1999 7:30 AM, Andrew McLaughlin 
[SMTP:mclaughlin@pobox.com] wrote:
> To the Names Council:
>
> Ben's note earlier today provides a helpful and thorough elaboration of 
the
> costs entailed by the DNSO's webcasting requirements.  Lest anyone get 
the
> wrong idea, however, let me squarely address one of Ben's hypotheticals:
>
> >But webcast costs might conceivably be split
> >in some other way.  ICANN might simply subsidize the DNSO -- not passing 
on
> >to the DNSO all costs relating to the DNSO, as I understand (but Andrew
> >should confirm) was done in Berlin.
>
> I confirm that ICANN has subsidized the costs of webcasting and 
translation
> services for the DNSO both at Berlin and at Santiago.  I can also confirm
> that that arrangement is no longer an option for Los Angeles.
>
> As I understand it, the Names Council today pledged that it would 
eventually
> figure out a way to pay for webcasting and related meeting expenses, but
> that it would take no steps to generate funds in advance of Los Angeles. 
 As
> you may recall, this was the same pledge that the Names Council expressed 
to
> me prior to Santiago;  however, there has been no sign of progress on 
that
> front in the intervening months.  While I appreciate the difficult 
demands
> and pressures that have been brought to bear on the Names Council, I 
simply
> cannot offer the DNSO yet another blank check for its meeting expenses,
> particularly when the DNSO's existing obligations to ICANN and the 
Berkman
> Center remain unpaid.
>
> I see two relatively straightforward and painless ways to address the 
DNSO's
> funding needs in the short term:
>
>      [1]  Collect a per-person meeting fee from attendees at the Tuesday
> DNSO GA and NC meetings.  This was the solution imposed by ICANN for the
> Berlin meeting, and worked fairly smoothly.  For example:  $60/head x 160
> heads = $9,600.
>
>      [2]  Find one or more sponsors for the DNSO meetings.  For example: 
 2
> sponsors x $5,000/each = $10,000.
>
> Let me be uncharacteristically blunt:  It's simply not an option for the
> Names Council to once again defer the question of funding to some day in 
the
> future, while leaving ICANN to pay its bills in the meantime.
>
> The Names Council has been making tremendous progress in recent weeks,
> working together to solve complex organizational and procedural issues in 
a
> cooperative way.  I hope that the NC will bring its considerable talents 
to
> bear on the issue of how the DNSO will fund its ongoing operational 
costs.
>
> --Andrew
>