[ga] Call for DNSO fundraising efforts
on 7/25/01 3:11 PM, DNSO Secretariat at DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org wrote:
> Agenda item 10: Call for Sponsors Feedback
> R. Cochetti reported on Budget Committee action concerning fund-raising
> campaign. VeriSign is willing to match any funds raised up to $100 000. Note
> about fund rising has been distributed (see annex 3). He invited the NC
> members to be persuasive in soliciting donations.
> Ph. Sheppard underlined that smaller contributions are most welcome and
> invited all participants to encourage contributions within their
> K. Stubbs added that this is an ideal opportunity for GA members to
> contribute to the DNSO work and asked a letter be sent to the GA Chair
> requesting a relevant message be forwarded to the GA list.
What is your basis for asking individual members of the GA to contribute to
the work of the DNSO? They have no Constituency, no seat on the NC, and no
available Secretariat services at this time. In short,"pay to play" should
work both ways, and until individuals have a say in how every part of the
DNSO is run, why should we pay anything?
In the circumstances, it seems reasonable for individuals, rather than
releasing funds directly to the DNSO, to set up an Escrow account and make
contributions subject to the formation of an Individuals Constituency vested
with all the same priviliges enjoyed by other affected stakeholders through
their respective constituencies, including NC representation and a seat on
each of its various Task Forces.
Would you support such a suggestion?
> Annex 3
> DNSO FUND-RAISING EFFORTS
> As you know, after quite a few months of preparation, we are now about to
> launch the fund-raising efforts for voluntary donations to the DNSO. These
> funds, which will be matched by donations from VeriSign Global Registry
> Services for up to $100,000, are primarily designed to cover the costs of
> providing professional support to the Names Council. Without them, baring
> any other changes, we will continue to operate on a primarily volunteer
> The purpose of this note is to alert you to the fact that the fund-raising
> effort will now begin and ask that you raise this with all of the members of
> your Constituency. A fund-raising document is attached. Contributions, which
> are tax deductible in the United States, should be made payable to "ICANN
> DNSO ACCOUNT" and mailed to ICANN. Alternatively, donors may wire transfer
> their donations as follows:
> Information for wire transfer to ICANN account:
> Account number 09146-11724
> Routing indicator 121000358
> Bank of America Branch 0914
> 4754 Admiralty Way
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
> Telephone +1/310/247-2080
> When making wire transfers, please send tracking information to
> Raising money for the operation of the DNSO and the Names Council is
> important. I think that we all agree that our ability to operate
> successfully is hindered by our all-volunteer support and that increased
> professional support is necessary to our success. While I know that many
> businesses and organizations -including many large businesses who benefit
> greatly form the successful operation of the domain names system- will claim
> that they have no funds available for such donations, if each
> organization/person who attends Names Council meetings would only donate one
> fifth of the amount of money that they spend on travel and entertainment for
> ICANN meetings to this effort, we will be amply funded.
> Please ask each of your members to make a contribution and help us push them
> a little on this.
> Roger Cochetti
> Budget Committee
> Annex 4
> DNSO SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
> MEMBER PARTICIPATION
> Erica Roberts - Chair
> Chuck Gomes
> Vany Martinez
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Phillip Shepard
> Elisabeth has indicated that she in involved in a response to the RFP and
> has withdrawn from the evaluation process.
> Vany has been out of contact and her emails are bouncing.
> Phillip recently joined the Committee following a request from the Chair for
> a replacement for members unable to participate in the evaluation and
> selection process.
> Ian Peter and Associates are managing the selection process and will report
> to the Search Committee on their evaluation of applicants. Ian will also be
> available to respond to any queries and provide guidance required by
> committee members.
> 1. The RFP for providers of DNSO Secretariat services (currently provided by
> Elisabeth/AFNIC) has now closed.
> 2. Eight responses have been received and are currently being evaluated by
> Ian Peter and Associates.
> 3. The evaluation and recommendations of Ian Peter and Associates will be
> forwarded to members of the Search Committee early next week (no later than
> Tue, 2 Jul).
> 4. The Search Committee is scheduled to meet on Thu next week (5 Jul) to
> consider the report of Ian Peter and Associates and determine its
> recommendation(s) for appointment.
> 5. The recommendation of the Search Committee will be submitted to the NC
> Budget Committee, which, in its turn, will submit a recommendation for
> appointment to the NC.
> 6. The appointee will be offered a consultancy contract and it is expected
> that a standard form contract will be used (with deliverables included in
> the contract schedule). ICANN, acting on behalf of the NC, will be the
> contract signatory.
> EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
> 1. The RFP was divided into two Sections. The first Section relates to the
> role of the person or persons undertaking the tasks of the Manager, DNSO
> Information and Technical Services. The second Section relates to the ISP
> services required to support our information and technical requirements
> (e.g. Web hosting, list servers, email, etc).
> 2. The role of Manager is considered as critical and, for this reason,
> completion of Section 1 of the RFP was mandatory. Applicants were also
> invited to bid for the supply of ISP services but, because these services
> are readily available on standard commercial terms, completion of this
> Section was optional. The NC reserved the right not to appoint any supplier
> of ISP services through this process.
> 3. Selection of Information Manager:
> a. All selection criteria are considered mandatory and providers who fail to
> satisfy any of the criteria will be rejected as unsuitable.
> b. Where fees are in excess of $7,000 pm applicants will be rejected as
> c. Evaluation is made against objective selection criteria.
> d. The person considered the best candidate for this position will be
> recommended for appointment.
> 4. Selection of Internet Services Provider: The selection process will
> follow the same principles as above. However, it is open to the Search
> Committee not to accept any applicants but to appoint a commercial ISP if
> this is deemed a more appropriate and cost effective approach. Ian Peter and
> Associates will indicate key options and issues for consideration by the
> Search Committee including sponsorship issues.
> 5. Ian Peter is available to attend the meetings of the Search Committee and
> respond to any queries from Committee members.
> The Search Committee has sought ICANN guidance and assistance on the most
> appropriate contractual arrangements and a copy of the standards consultancy
> contract used by ICANN. However, no response from ICANN has so far been
> received and follow up on this issue is required.
> Information from: © DNSO Names Council
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html