DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights

Chuck and all DNSO GA Participants,

  I cannot find any fault in any of your comments or statements below
as stated.  However I hope that you understand that some of the
constituency groups are in effect paying the DNSO for accreditation
so as to remain keeping their voting rights.  A better funding model
for the DNSO can be found or determined and still not push the
funding needs on the constituencies.  This I think is the primary
concern of the DNSO GA and the DNSO Constituencies.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Danny,
> 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
> discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the NC
> took.
> 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 clarification seemed
> wise.  If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws, then I
> think the Bylaws should be changed.
> I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before the
> ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.  So
> 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 move on.
> It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is extremely
> 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 to
> develop leadership that is able to organize its members to effectively
> respond to issues and to financially support the organization.  The latter
> can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support their
> cause.
> BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership
> and therefore its viability.
> 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 course.
> The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits a
> serious amount of time and effort toward the development of effective
> consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my mind.  Every
> 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
> priority on this.
> Chuck
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
> Sent:   Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 AM
> To:     ga@dnso.org
> Subject:        [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights
> Chuck,
> I am well aware of the specific terms approved.  Please do not presume that
> I am speaking out of ignorance.  I am also aware that this NC action is not
> consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for clarification of
> 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
> community of Internet users".    How does your solution serve to advance the
> 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
> costs) is certainly preferable to a course of action that would potentially
> disenfranchise segments of our membership.
> This "reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority on
> the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the "need" to ensure
> the "rights" of your fellow participants.
> You are blessed with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN
> process are not.    Are you advocating that only those with sufficient funds
> 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>