DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

Milton and all assembly members,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> I want to clarify certain aspects of this issue.
> As a general principle, I believe that the Non-commercial constituency should contribute what it can to the support of the DNSO secretariat. It can and will contribute significantly more than it has.

  I am sure that the ICANN BoD will find this to be a positive sign.  At least
let's hope they will....  One never knows with the BoD.

> We've been addressing this issue in the NCC since January, e.g. by preparing to impose specific membership fees and other fundraising activities.
> We have two objections to the way this is being done.
> 1. We are not a pre-existing organization. We were thrown together late in 1999 by the creation of the DNSO. The NCDNHC is simply larger, and more heterogeneous in composition, than any other constituency, with the ccTLDs possibly excepted, and has the fewest resources. We need more time to get the organizational and funding issues resolved. This obvious fact is not being taken into account by certain members of the NC.

  As you know, the NC in general has been negatively influenced from the usual
parties/individuals, Milton.  So it should be of little surprise that the DNSO NC
has taken a predominantly negative view of the NCDNHC.

> 2. We don't make money off domain names. Unlike every other constituency, including the ccTLDs. Indeed, there is no significant connection between the legitimacy of a constituency and its ability to raise money.

  Agreed in your last sentence here Milton.  And a significant but often
overlooked fact.

> We all know that the so-called gTLD "constituency" is not a real or legitimate constituency at all. It's just one company. It's ability to pay its share of the $15k has nothing to do with the quality or legitimacy of its input into DNSO policy processes - it simply reflects the fact that NSI was given a very lucrative government monopoly some years ago.

  Good point here as well, and one that seems often overlooked as well.  I refer
to this a nepotism in its ugliest form.

> This fact, too, has not been taken account of by certain members of the NC. They have consistently rejected requests by NCDNHC for a smaller contribution.

  Yes.  And as such it seems fairly obvious that certain members of the DNSO
NC would wish to eliminate the NCDNHC's voice in the DNSO through pricing.

> The conclusion I come to is that certain members, particularly Cochetti, wants very badly to eliminate certain members of the NC.

  Yes, this would seem more than obvious to us as well...

> --
> 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 >>>