RE: [wg-review] View from here - Who pays????????????????

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Peter, Sotiris,
This type of exchange rise a lot of point of controversy which
have to be addressed by a consensual organization of the ICANN.
This is absolutely the core of our preoccupation.
Thank you.
Jefsey


On 06:26 08/01/01, Sotiropoulos said:
>1/8/01 12:16:25 AM, "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> wrote:
>
> >The issues of money will always be there (here).
> >
> >There is a cost of maintaining these forums, web servers, lists, scribes,
> >minutes, administration, etc.
>
>There's also a cost in participating, let's not forget that please.  I'm 
>not getting paid to be here.
>
> >Having a "pre-condition" of an organized, well functioning DNSO before the
> >funding is putting the cart before the horse. Who is going to pay the costs
> >of operation while we get it "organized" ?
>
>Do you mean to say that though others decide the DNSO needs to be 
>re-organized, the DNSO will do the re-organization?  What's the purpose of any
>review process then?
>
> >People involved in this process manage to purchase business class tickets,
> >fly around the world to meetings, stay at upscale hotels, accept the
> >services, amenities, and comforts that go along with "the experience", and
> >then claim their constituency "has no money"  "is non-profit", "has already
> >been taxed by paying for a domain name", etc.
>
>How about all the people who "manage to purchase business class tickets, 
>fly around the world to meetings, stay at upscale hotels, accept the
>services, amenities, and comforts that go along with "the experience"," 
>and do not reach into their own pockets?  What makes them any more
>legitimate?  As Elizabeth Portneuve pointed out, there are four 
>Constituencies who do not pay, and yet are represented.  Who's paying to 
>keep them in
>the "game"?
>
> >Until there is a way to persuade the money-collecting business interests
> >such as ISP's and domain name registrars and registries that they should pay
> >for the sum total of the entire operation - and cover those who wish to "not
> >pay to play", then, some mechanism needs to be devised that distributes the
> >costs.
>
>OK, you make a good point.  Let's see, in a DNSO which should ultimately 
>be `inclusive' enought to give more than a lip service "ear" to all 158,000
>current (and the myriads to follow) ICANN @Large Members, if say, a 
>one-time @Large Membership fee were instituted at perhaps the 
>reasonable(?) sum
>of 10 dollars a head, I believe the @Large Membership would be better able 
>to assuage your (and anybody else's) concerns over their representation
>costs.  Of course, I also believe that such a fund MUST only be managed by 
>the @Large Membership itself, under their own organization.  In other
>words, no ICANN appointments.  Whatever costs incurred by ICANN for 
>assisting in the organization process, will of course be paid back over 
>time by the
>@Large Membership Fund.  The issue of what exactly the "representation 
>cost" on the DNSO should be is one which is outside the scope of this tiny
>posting.
>
> >As a ccTLD leader, I have a serious problem justifying ccTLD paying 1/3 of
> >the entire ICANN budget. And in addition to the ICANN budget, we have our
> >own ccTLD secretariat to fund, just so we can get and remain organized
> >enough to participate effectively. I'm sure other constituencies also need a
> >secretariat.
> >
> >The DNSO itself needs a secretariat- yet more (necessary) costs.
> >
>
>Here's a thought which popped into my head as I read this part... How 
>about if the four constituencies -who currently DO NOT PAY (and have not to-
>date) for their representation and status within the DNSO organization- be 
>asked to pay retroactive "dues" for their involvement in heretofore 
>process and
>policy?  I wonder how that would go over?  just a thought...
>
> >As a ccTLD manager, I recently witnessed a domain name dispute that resulted
> >in over US $ 50,000 of legal fees.
>
>One thing's got nothing to do with the other.  If a proper definition of 
>what a domain name had been laid out to begin with (as Jon Postel 
>basically spelled
>it out in his original draft), none of these `unfortunate' scenarios would 
>be occuring.  Although, I'm sure the lawyers aren't complaining...  But, 
>I'm glad to
>see that this issue concerns you... I think?
>
> >Let's face it, a lot of special interest groups are reaping profits (which
> >is OK with me) in this Internet Business.
>
>"Special" interest groups?  Got any examples for us?  what exactly are 
>their interests?  just money-collecting?
>
> >Government costs money. It also provides services. the ICANN process is no
> >different.
>
>I agree, but where would government AND business be without the 
>INDIVIDUALS who are the bottom line in any ECONOMIC REPORT, and who create
>the wealth collected by others through their INDIVIDUAL labours?  Some 
>HUMAN BEINGS do not consider themselves as RESOURCES to be taken for
>granted by "special interests".  It's INDIVIDUALS who ultimately vote with 
>their dollars, let's not forget that, and let's all be respectful of it.
>
> >We need to devise some way to fairly and equitably pay for the cost of what
> >we are doing.
>
>Agreed.
>
> >And we need more money than that- for outreach, to advertise, stimulate, and
> >encourage more participation by the stakeholders whos voices we never hear.
>
>Again, I agree.
>
>But who is going to tell us how we should do it?  Even the President of 
>the United States of America is put into power by VOTES!
>
> >This may be off-topic for this WG- but I needed to say it anyway.
>
>I don't think so, in fact, I think you addressed some pretty important 
>issues.  I, for one, was glad to hear your viewspoint.
>
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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