RE: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Yes, paul. At the time the NCDNHC also stated, that as matter of
principle, they should pay no more than 50% of any dues assessed other
constituencies.

I suggested that the percentage stay at 100%, and that the NCDNHC simply
ask the other constituencies for a grant. That way, each of the other
constituencies would be subsiding NCDNDC by choice instead of by "fiat".

Changing the percentage would cause the dues to be re-calculated, and
the invoices had already gone out.

At the time, the leadership of the NCDNDC rejected that concept, because
it might lead to "capture", or an implied obligation on the part of
NCDNDC.

Finally, I suggested the usual sources, Markle, Ford, Center for
Democracy foundations, etc. 

I do not know if NCDNDC applied to them.

peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Paul M. Kane
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:06 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Milton Mueller'; council@dnso.org; amsiat@bow.intnet.bj;
yjpark@myepark.com; vandrome@renater.fr; mueller@syracuse.edu;
ceo@vany.org
Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues


Morning Peter

As a recent overview you are correct ... but it should also be
remembered when Danny Vandrome was on the NC (and pre Budget Committee
days) looking into the issue of dues Danny requested the NCDNHC be
allowed a dispensation due to the composition of the constituency. At
the time he suggested a 50% discount, but due to timing other
Constituencies had already committed to the proposed budget and failure
for any Constituency to pay their proportion would have represented a
short fall in overall income. As it happened a number of  constituencies
were delinquent so there was a significant shortfall in the annual
revenue.

I understand ICANN has now, (at the request of the NCDNHC NC reps)
introduced a credit card payment system to assist the NCDNHC collect
it's dues.

Best

Paul



Peter de Blanc wrote:

> For the record, when the NC vote on sanctions came up,  NCDNHC reps 
> voted yes.
>
> The fact is that sanctions don't really kick in for 180 days or 6 
> months, from the time of the first notice- which, to my knowledge has 
> not been sent out.
>
> Furthermore, the suggestion that the existence of the "sanction 
> resolution", may thwart collection efforts, could well apply to ANY 
> constituency.
>
> Especially the ccTLD constituency.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf

> Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:26 PM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Cc: amsiat@bow.intnet.bj; yjpark@myepark.com; vandrome@renater.fr; 
> mueller@syracuse.edu; ceo@vany.org
> Subject: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues
>
> August 21, 2001
>
> Fellow Name Councillors:
>
> I want to update you on the status of the NCDNHC's efforts
> to pay its dues, and to clarify some of the related issues.
>
> The NCDNHC is a large and very diverse collection of organizations 
> that have never worked together prior to the creation of ICANN. It 
> took us until June 2001 (the Stockholm meeting) to finally pass a 
> resolution authorizing the mandatory collection of membership dues
> from the member organizations. A previous proposal to
> charge membership dues (submitted by myself) was defeated
> in Melbourne. The persistence of certain members in
> getting this through ought to be noted.
>
> According to our rules, the results of the face to face meeting must 
> be ratified by an online vote. This was supposed to happen by July 
> 2001. However, the Internet Society, which until then hosted our 
> membership list, suffered technical problems which, without warning,
> completely disabled our communication for more than a
> month.
>
> As of August 20 we have established a new email list
> and have carefully made the transition so that no members will be left

> out of any important decisions.
>
> We are now ready to authorize ICANN to invoice our
> members for contributions to the DNSO, and if the
> Stockholm resolution is ratified by online vote, as
> I expect it will be soon, any organizations not paying
> those dues will cease to be voting members of NCDNHC
> as of March 2002. I expect that we will be able to
> raise the required amounts going forward, but of course
> I do not know for sure.
>
> The point I want to emphasize is that our "delinquency"
> thus far has NOT been a willful refusal to pay but a byproduct of the 
> difficult process of developing the organizational capacity to pay.
>
> It follows that threats to impose interest charges,
> cut off votes, etc., will have absolutely no impact on
> our ability or willingness to pay. All we need is the
> time to implement our plan.
>
> Indeed, the sanctions proposed by the Budget Committee
> would be counterproductive. If they are implemented
> just as our dues-collection process gets underway,
> the value proposition that might encourage existing
> NCDNHC members to pay their dues is fatally undermined.
> How can we ask budget-strapped non-profits to pay dues
> to an organization that refuses to allow them to vote in
> the DNSO? How will the NCDNHC ever catch up with the
> interest charges that will almost certainly pile up as
> we continue to fall behind arbitrary deadlines? The impact
> of a rigid imposition of sanctions will simply be to
> destroy the NCDNHC.
>
> Perhaps this is what some people want. I believe that
> the majority of the NC and DNSO, however, do not want
> that. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the
> missing money is critical to the operation of the DNSO;
> at any rate, destruction of a constituency via rigid application of 
> sanctions would ensure that that money will always be missing.
>
> Fellow Council members, shall I go forward with the
> NCDNHC's plan to implement membership dues? Can I tell
> my members in good faith that the DNSO values and needs
> their participation and will bear with them while the dues-collection 
> processes are put into place and given time to work?
>
> Please give me your guidance.
>
> Milton Mueller