Re: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights
>>>>>At the same time, I strongly believe that the success
of ICANN is heavily
dependent on the success of the DNSO. Consequently,
I place a very high
priority on this.
I would like to believe Chuck. I really think he means well, however, I
would like to see VeriSign make a *tax deductible* donation to the DNSO-GA for
funding its operations.
I think it would be a great idea to draw up a *request for a
donation,* for VeriSign to fund the DNSO-GA annual expenses.
Let VeriSign turn down a reasonable request for funding!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 14:28
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Suspension of
Taking food from the mouths of starving
children to fund the organization which does not support the interests of the
masses is one way of looking at it. Another is to say that the real
cause is the starving children and the fact that they dare to be
Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy. Of course the
DNSO is needed to support the status quo. Whether or not the DNSO can
affect real change on ICANN and its 'policies' is open. To think that
lower-level sub-groups like a constituency or GA for that matter can affect
the DNSO (read NC) is a further abstraction from reality.
DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it. If VeriSign were
really smart they would slip the constituencies some money and make this
troublesome issue go away, THis debate is just calling more attention to
issues which will help challenge the continuation of the status quo.
Thanks for the help!
At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, Gomes, Chuck
Please help me understand how
you could be aware of the facts and yet
proceed to use a word like
"tyranny?" That is an emotionally charged term
that seems to be
designed to incite anger rather than understanding and
certainly not a word that describes the action that the
It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent
with ICANN bylaws
but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that
wise. If it is decided that there is a
conflict with the Bylaws, then I
think the Bylaws should be
I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off
ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that
whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks
is open to debate,
but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will
It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN
important. I understand that the DNSO is a part of
ICANN structure, but
within that structure, DNSO independence lends much
more credibility to DNSO
recommendations. Therefore, I believe that
a self-funded DNSO is much
better than one funded by ICANN.
Moreover, that is consistent with the
other Supporting Organizations,
both of which are self-funded.
I also believe that DNSO
constituencies should be able to demonstrate a
certain amount of
viability. There are lots of ways to do this, one of
which is the
ability to generate minimal amounts of finances. Another is
develop leadership that is able to organize its members to
respond to issues and to financially support the
organization. The latter
can mean soliciting funds from charitable
organizations to support their
BTW, there are lots of signs
that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership
and therefore its
The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is
this: the most and
maybe the only critical value to being a member
of the DNSO and the NC is
the right to vote so the only way to
effectively ensure payment of dues set
by the whole NC is to threaten
loss of the one right that people value.
Obviously, my conclusion here is
based on my assumption that DNSO funding
should not come from ICANN,
thereby making the DNSO less dependent on ICANN
for its viability as an
organization and therefore presumably more freely
able to set its own
The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that
serious amount of time and effort toward the development of
consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my
NC representative as well as most DNSO members are
volunteers who have full
time jobs that more than fill their time without
the added responsibilities
they assume in the DNSO. To expect them
to also perform the huge task of
leading the efforts of developing and
implementing an effective
consensus-building process is probably
unreasonable and destined to failure.
At least in the near future, I
believe that will require the efforts of a
full-time person whose primary
responsibility is to focus on that objective.
At the same time, I
strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily
dependent on the
success of the DNSO. Consequently, I place a very high
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27
Re: Suspension of Voting Rights
I am well aware
of the specific terms approved. Please do not presume that
speaking out of ignorance. I am also aware that this NC action is
consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for
such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard on 13
April, and reiterated
by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 April, has
still gone unanswered.
Your constituency and others have enormously
profited from participation in
the ICANN process, and yet rather than
seeking solutions which facilitate
greater participation and reduce
barriers to entry, you have elected to
pursue a punitive policy which
stands at odds with White Paper principles.
As a reminder, the White
Paper calls for "input from the broad and growing
Internet users". How does your solution serve to advance
needs of our growing community?
Is there a fear to ask the
ICANN Board for funding? There have certainly
been many changes
made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a change
that would allow
for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate
activities of the
Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and operational
certainly preferable to a course of action that would
disenfranchise segments of our membership.
"reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority
the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the "need" to
the "rights" of your fellow participants.
You are blessed
with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN
not. Are you advocating that only those with sufficient
have a place at ICANN's table? I am of the view
that if we are a part of
ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting all of
our expenses. If we are not
a part of ICANN, then perhaps we should
be invoicing ICANN for policy
guidance to the same degree that ICANN is
invoiced for legal advice.
This message was passed to
you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to
email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html