Re: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council
Noone in the ICANN 'family' has done more,spoken out more,worked harder or longer, or brought more committment and passion to the arena than you.
I have watched with amazement for more than 4 years and still remember our 1st meeting in 'DC" where your knowledge and straightforwardness so impressed me (stunned may be better word)As you say,you and I and the Board may hold different views on issues of the moment but the Board as a whole and your DNSO Directors are committed deeply to a better ,fairer,open,relevant ICANN and that includes an effective Policy Arm the DNSO or its logical successor
So I return the Thanks with respect and affection .We will share your thoughts with the whole Board and we remain available to work with,and listen to the DNSO.Alix and Amadeu share my feelings and both ensure that DNSO issues are heard at the Board and weighed in with due consideration.
Part of the 'new' structure may be to adopt a practice I suggested 2 years ago to Esther...to have specific(logical) Directors assigned to liase directly with the various SO,s and Advisory Groups to ensure that all pertinent info and views (majority and minority) get to the Board 'accurately' and on a timely basis.This will also allow the 'community' to know where,to whom to direct their concerns ,facts,questions,lobbying etc ? what do you all think (southern style question!)
"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> Jonathan, thanks for your post.
> Thanks for your continued commitment and support to the "dnso" in whatever "forms" it evolves into -- gtldso and ccso. And to our other DNSO elected board members.
> I believe that we do expect the DNSO elected board members to maintain a dialogue with the DNSO, while representing ICANN's broader interests overall. In my view, we have had the benefit of this dialogue/participation, as well as an openness by other board members to hear our views and meet with us/as constituencies, and as groups of constituencies. I note that at the last cross constituency meeting, we had the benefit of over 50 % of the board in person, to dialogue with only three constituencies...
> It occurs to me that we might not have said "thank you" for all the extra meetings where so many of the board members spent extra time in outreach sessions. Could I ask that you and Alj share this email with other board members?
> I appreciate the effort that you have all made and continue to count on your engagement and outreach throughout the evolution process. I know I am not alone in that "thanks".
> And, your understanding of the concerns of the DNSO... is important to us. But, just wearing my hat for a moment of global business user, your understanding of the other aspects of ICANN's mission are also critical. It's a lot of work for our board members, and perhaps so far an under appreciated role.
> I may not agree with all of the Board's decisions. That isn't a relevant point. I fully support the goal which I view the Board as pursuing - stability and improved processes for the next generation of ICANN.
> So, thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cohen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council
> this is an interesting and timely discussion.
> It needs to be pursued vigorously,in my view, as it is important that the DNSO, .or its successor, can work and do the job for which it was intended . I am confident that it can BUT it must have the necessary support and funding to allow its members to focus on the work at hand and to have the necessary support functions looked after efficiently.
> I was strongly supportive, and remain so, of the DNSO and funding for it........However,the current climate did not permit that to happen at this time. But It is far from a dead issue. In the meanwhile ,existing constituencies must do all they can to put aside differences and come forth with as much $ and agreement as they can.
> The more the DNSO can act as a unit and show self-sufficiency the greater will be the support from the community and the Board.
> I apologize if I am stating the obvious to many but You should know that many Board members including myself,Amadeu and of course .Alejandro strongly believe in the concept of an independant functional DNSO
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> > I support waiving the rule for the ccTLDs on tying voting rights to funding for the DNSO, in this extraordinary time of trying to ensure a successful evolution of ICANN.
> > Elizabeth makes several excellent arguments but in addition, my support is based on my view that the ccTLDs should continue to contribute to the evolution and reform of the policy processes during this critical period, leading up to the China meeting. Their participation and contributions are valuable to the shared concerns about a global, interoperable Internet -- which encompasses gTLDs and ccTLDs.
> > I do not mean to suggest that the financial situation is not a critical one, and constituencies are struggling to find the means to fund the DNSO's structural support. I am on record as being strongly disappointed in that the budget committee rejected the NC recommendation that ICANN's budget fund the policy process. I take note that this funding/staff support will be part of an evolved ICANN.
> > However, regardless of the financial situation, this is an extraordinary time. Denying the voting contribution of the ccTLD constituency -- or of another constituency, because they have not been able to fulfill their financial support obligations, is not the right approach to determing policy related to evolution and reform.
> > When we enacted these rules, we did not envision these extraordinary circumstances we are faced with and working within at this time. Or at least, I didn't.
> > I would hope that the ccTLD constituency could revisit how they might make a payment to the fees as a separate discussion item.
> > I understand that we may be left with a significant unpaid amount, but denying voting privileges does not mean that we will solve the funding problem for unpaid fees.
> > I will be only on the call for an hour. My vote, should there be a motion on this topic, would be to support a waiver for the ccTLDs for policy votes related to evolution and reform; and, separately, to request that they establish a mechanism to try to make a back payment toward the fees.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:24 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council
> > To the Names Council,
> > While the ICANN Reform process is at its final stage:
> > 1. The "Blueprint" document produced on 20th June has been commented
> > in Bucharest and on line by all organized ICANN groups (the DNSO
> > NC and GA as well as each Constituency individually, other
> > Supporting Organizations and their components, the Advisories
> > Committees of ICANN including GAC) as well as many individuals;
> > 2. The ICANN Board resolutions in Bucharest recognize community
> > comments, and, while leaving flexibility for ICANN 2 design,
> > create the ccTLD Supporting Organization in parallel to its sister
> > gTLD Supporting Organization (current DNSO with some adjustments);
> > 3. The "Blueprint" document determines that the reformed ICANN 2 will
> > be consistent and provide financial and staff support to its
> > Supporting Organizations, exactly in the same way as it is
> > providing financial and staff support today to various ICANN
> > Committees;
> > 4. The USG is in the process of preparing the next Memorandum of
> > Understanding with ICANN, to be issued before 30 September 2002;
> > It seems important that the current DNSO works together with the ccTLD
> > Managers on the transition to the ICANN 2 structure.
> > The ccTLD Managers, collectively and individually, have been providing
> > the constant support to the ICANN and to the DNSO:
> > 1. Financing ICANN budget at the level of one million US dollars a
> > year on a voluntary basis (expecting to set up agreements for
> > IANA services to the ccTLD community);
> > 2. Building up the DNSO itself in Singapore 1999 and its Provisional
> > Names Council in Berlin 1999;
> > 3. Providing a totally voluntary, and free of charge to all, service
> > of the DNSO Secretariat in 1999. Thanks to that service, not only
> > the Names Council could start to work, but also ICANN started to
> > function populated with 3 Board Directors elected in October 1999.
> > 4. Since its inception in June 1999 and as an ancillary activity to
> > the DNSO Secretariat (run by a ccTLD Manager), the dnso.org server
> > has been hosting free of charge web pages, mailing lists and
> > corresponding archives for Registrars and ISPCP. The IPC got the
> > DNSO Secretariat help during its initial difficult times.
> > The NCDNH Constituency was helped in their elections.
> > The lack of financial support from ICANN for the DNSO, for its core
> > mission assigned in the MoU with the USG, i.e. development of
> > extra-judiciary rules for the gTLD space (such as UDRP, whois, etc)
> > led to the Names Council efforts to gather small, but essential to its
> > existence, funds.
> > This task of raising funds for DNSO however was perceived differently
> > by different Constituencies:
> > 1. The gTLD Registries and Registrars finance already the large part
> > of ICANN - which is perfectly logical with ICANN mission for gTLD
> > space and DNSO where gTLD policies are being developed - and
> > gather fees from end-users. The gTLD Registries and Registrars get
> > benefits from contracts with ICANN and have means to raise fees.
> > 2. The ccTLD Managers finance already the large part of ICANN - while
> > they are NOT part of the main and the most costly ICANN mission
> > related to the gTLD space, but they do so as part of their
> > responsibility for a stable Internet and IANA function. The ccTLD
> > Managers (with 2 recent exceptions) do not have contracts with
> > ICANN for IANA function. It is important to note that without
> > dully documented contractual relationships there are very few
> > if any legal possibilities for ccTLD to send money to a foreign
> > private company. In addition to one million USD transferred to
> > a foreign private company ICANN by the ccTLD Managers,
> > the ccTLD Constituency paid in 2001 near $10,000 to the DNSO Names
> > Council ($6916 as of April 2002, completed recently with $3000).
> > 3. The Business, IPC, ISPCP or NCDNH do not finance ICANN directly,
> > and while raising small funds for the DNSO which was not always
> > easy for them, they have been supporting the DNSO Secretariat,
> > the essential responsibility to the community;
> > 4. As mention above, the DNSO Secretariat has been run on a voluntary
> > basis by one ccTLD in 1999, and its bill of $59,400 for year 2000
> > services remains unpaid.
> > The ccTLD Managers do not wish to distract the Names Council and the
> > DNSO from their main task today, which is ICANN Reform and transition to
> > the ICANN 2.
> > The ccTLD Managers request the Names Council to take into account the
> > whole record of Constituency contributions to the DNSO, collectively and
> > individually, and waive the rule related to voting rights related to the
> > DNSO fees.
> > We believe that it is the only fair approach permitting everybody to
> > focus on ICANN's important reform issues today.
> > Signed for ccTLD Managers
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Shapiro Cohen
> Ottawa, ON Canada
> Telephone: (613) 232-5300
> Facsimile : (613) 563-9231
> This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
> and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
> named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
> by any other person and/or organization. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
> and/or return e-mail.
Ottawa, ON Canada
Telephone: (613) 232-5300
Facsimile : (613) 563-9231
This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
by any other person and/or organization. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
and/or return e-mail.