[nc-budget] The DNSO, the NC, and its Secretariat

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Colleagues,

This is (not so) short summary on the Secretariat issues.

Let me add that personnaly I am very concerned that
an association be settled in a professional manner,
the "temporary" solutions have tendencies to last forever,
and get worst over time.

Best regards,
Elisabeth
--
 
The DNSO, the NC, and its Secretariat

1.  One of reasons of a weak DNSO is related to its status as part
    of ICANN (the initial reason, still valid, was to avoid to be
    sued for policy decisions). Contrary to others SOs, the DNSO
    was set up from scratch, without any funding, voluntary work only.
    To get some autonomy for the DNSO (such as administrating its
    own finances in a legal way) it needs a legal structure, and
    a public decision.

2.  The NC considered two options.

2.1 First option was to move the DNSO to the US, and keep it in ICANN
    Los Angeles offices.
    It was felt neither desirable, not politically correct.
    From ICANN only strategy, moving the DNSO to California collapses
    ICANN international legitimacy, and put it in danger.
    From anybody else who spend years working out on the international
    Organization, representing worldwide interests and trust, it is
    unacceptable.

2.2 Second option is to figure out how to reform the DNSO and allow it
    to work in a decent way, under Bylaws.
    The current DNSO Review requested by ICANN Board is underway,
    and first drafts has been written gathering a rich and important
    comments from the NC and from various DNSO horizons (Constituencies,
    General Assembly, GA Chairs).
    The NC feels itself that its current situation is not satisfactory.
    Some of the NC members wishes to work in a way similar to ICANN Board,
    i.e. have all documents gathered, drafts for discussion prepared,
    various options presented for decisions only.
 
3.  The decision on the DNSO is political.
 
3.1 All possible approaches has been made to look on the DNSO Secretariat
    from the budget only perspective, and all failed.
 
3.2 The DNSO budget is NOT an issue. ICANN staff reminds frequently that
    almost 90 percent of its budget is from the US origin. That is NORMAL,
    various discussions indicate that to have ICANN institution
    somewhere one MUST pay for it, there is a good understanding on it.
    How one may expect wrldwide enthusiasm to send money one way to
    California ?
 
3.3 Let's then consider the DNSO seed in Europe, taking into account
    all the work done here since two years for the benefit of everybody,
    ICANN legitimacy included, we are ICANN.
    There is no special legal difficulties to set up DNSO as
    legal ICANN branches in Europe, Paris.
    From ICANN perspective, the current workplan call for its
    presence in many places, and Europe is one of very important ones.
    ICANN staff and ICANN Board are given the strong signals
    to take it into consideration for the benefit of everybody.
 
3.4 As the outcome of AFNIC and myself experience and service to the DNSO
    community it appears that a ligthtweight Secretariat needs
    2-3 staff and small offices to fulfill its minimal obligations,
    approx 250-300,000 USD. This is common situation in similar
    not for profit associations (for exemple CENTR). This amount of money
    was never questioned by anybody, to the contrary -- both Dennis 
    Jennings and Don Telage stated publicly how reasonnable it is.
 
3.5 In March 2000 the DNSO NC voted a minimal "solidarity between
    Constituencies" budget, approx 100,000 USD.
 
3.6 Subsequently I requested the formal decision on DNSO offices
    is Europe, as a necessary step to raise additionnal money
    for the DNSO, and eventually have a decent work conditions.
 
3.7 The NC itself needs to have dedicated person working on policy
    issues and able to lead a group towards consensus when possible.
    Since Yokohama the NC task force on Secretariat budget 
    is working on both, budget, profiles and selection process.

3.8 This new requirement completes but not replaces the initial
    one as currently provided by the existing Secretariat.
    Furthermore the detailed description of profiles (Chuck et al.)
    provides a better idea of the "consumption of human resources".
    and put lights that probably the NC have an unrealistic
    expectation of what any single person can do.

3.9 Eventually a clarification, I believe the "policy power" in
    the DNSO remains within the elected NC representatives, not within
    the hired staff.