RE: [ga] Re: Austerity Measures

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Okay Bill,


Package it up, ready to go, and I'll send it off. However, be aware that the
AG has a lot on his plate wrt the energy issues out here. With selective
prosecution and more vocal lobbys from the energy folks, the chances of this
getting air-play are exactly two ... 1) slim and 2) none.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:35 PM
> To: babybows.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Austerity Measures
> 
> 
> Thanks much, Danny. I figured you'd come back with something
> like this. So here's plan B:
> 
> It seems to be shown that domain name issues are handled by the
> Board not in the public interest but rather at the behest of 
> the special
> interest groups to which you refer.  As to us "publicans," no funds
> are budgeted for an annual election, the purported Domain Name
> Supporting Organization, "advisory" to the Board, likewise
> receives no funding and will be selling pencils on street corners
> even to get someone to Stockholm. The Board allows a resolution
> on the issue, but the NC then (so far as I've been able to find out)
> just sits on it.  Seems to me the time has come for some California
> resident (which I am not) to fire off to the California Attorney
> General the evidence of this, such as that you have just layed out,
> and request that suit be filed by the AG against ICANN on the
> grounds that it is not acting properly under the law by which it was
> formed. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) at the outset;
> Injunction to come later; and finally a Court Order naming ICANN
> and its Officers and Directors directing them how ICANN must
> conduct itself or else lose its ticket to the parade.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> "babybows.com" wrote:
> 
> > Bill,
> >
> > The Names Council adopted the Report of its Budget Committee
> > 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00318.html relevant
> > citation below:
> >
> > >From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to 
> representatives of
> > Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or 
> its agent by:
> >
> > ** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and 
> another invoice
> >
> > ** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
> > delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website
> >
> > ** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" 
> (in which they
> > are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights in 
> the Names Council
> > should not be suspended) and they are charged a 5% late 
> payment fee to cover
> > the cost to the DNSO of the cost of money.  The 5% penalty 
> is added to that
> > Constituency's dues for the next (not the current) DNSO budget year.
> >
> > ** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to 
> pay" and charged an
> > additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a 
> added payment for
> > their next year's DNSO dues
> >
> > ** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to 
> participate, of that
> > Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are 
> suspended until such
> > time as the DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts 
> including the
> > varies late payment fees.
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > As the DNSO is an internal committee of ICANN that the 
> Board has chosen not
> > to fund, it becomes necessary for the DNSO to pay for its 
> own costs from
> > funds put forth by the special interests that participate 
> as voting members
> > on the NC.  Some constituencies do not appear to have the 
> ability to meet
> > this funding obligation... I believe that the 
> Non-Commercial must raise
> > $29,000 within the next half year or they will forfeit 
> their right to vote
> > (one of their representatives can probably give you the 
> exact amount).
> >
> > This funding requirement not only threatens several 
> existing constituencies,
> > but it also poses a barrier to entry for new 
> constituencies.  If we ever
> > succeed in obtaining an Individual's Constituency, there is 
> every likelihood
> > that this constituency might not be able to meet the 
> funding obligation and
> > thereby join the ranks of other constituencies without the 
> right to vote.
> >
> > This ultimately means that domain name policy issues will 
> be voted upon by a
> > group that is not reasonably representative of the whole of 
> the Internet
> > community.
> >
> > We should be asking, why is the work of this internal 
> committee (the DNSO)
> > not funded by ICANN, while other committees are funded.  
> Why is ICANN
> > spending $450,000 on a committee to study how to kill off 
> the at-Large, and
> > not one penny for a committee that is charged with 
> determining community
> > consensus on domain name policy issues?  I guess it's more 
> important that
> > Board-squatting Directors retain their seats, than that we 
> should be doing
> > our work on behalf of the ICANN Board in an efficient and 
> representative
> > manner.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
--
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