[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting Rights

[Milton Mueller]

As of Feb 2002 NCDNHC has contributed $6250.

>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr> 02/13/02 03:21PM >>>

J. Scott,

The status as of 31 Dec 2001 is explicted in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011231.ICANN-DNSO-finances.html 

Elisabeth
--

> From owner-council at dnso.org Wed Feb 13 21:14 MET 2002
> Message-ID: <029c01c1b4ba$3e5bb9c0$1c00a8c0 at adamspat.com>
> From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse at adamspat.com>
> To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc at usvi.net>, "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller at syr.edu>,
>         <council at dnso.org>
> Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting Rights
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:14:14 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> 
> Milton, Roger or Philip:
> 
> Can anyone tell me who is current on their DNSO dues to ICANN?  In addition,
> of those that are delinquent, how much are the arrearages?
> 
> J. Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc at usvi.net>
> To: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller at syr.edu>; <council at dnso.org>
> Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
> Rights
> 
> 
> > I would suggest we accept the $ 6,000 and delay any "suspension"
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at dnso.org [mailto:owner-council at dnso.org] On Behalf
> > Of Milton Mueller
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:37 PM
> > To: council at dnso.org 
> > Cc: discuss at icann-ncc.org 
> > Subject: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
> > Rights
> >
> >
> > On Feb 1, 2002, representatives of the Noncommercial
> > Domain Name Holders Constituency received an email
> > asking us to show cause why our voting rights in the
> > Names Council should not be suspended.
> >
> > This is the formal response of the NCDNHC Adcom.
> > Here are your "causes:"
> >
> > 1. The NCDNHC is making a good faith effort to collect
> > funds.
> >
> > A membership dues program was initiated in the Fall.
> > We have collected about $6,000. Additional funds are
> > still coming in, as are additional memberships.
> > Collection was delayed somewhat by ICANN's method of
> > invoicing, which involved emailing 3Mb pdf files
> > directly to members. We greatly appreciate the
> > administrative support of ICANN staff, but many of our
> > members could not receive the ICANN invoice, due to
> > the size of the file. We are still dealing with the
> > consequences of that.
> >
> > At any rate, when this program was instituted we made
> > it clear to the Names Council that we would NOT be
> > able to meet the deadlines imposed by the Names
> > Council sanctions program, but that over the longer
> > term we can be expected to develop stable and
> > substantial sources of financial support. At that time
> > we received assurances from several members that we
> > should go ahead with our efforts to raise money.
> >
> > 2. Suspension of our voting rights would be
> > counterproductive.
> >
> > Eliminating our voting rights will also eliminate any
> > future contributions from NCDNHC. The only effect of
> > such an action will be to INCREASE the financial
> > support burden of other constituencies.
> >
> > NCDNHC member organizations cannot be expected to
> > continue to provide financial support for the DNSO if
> > they are barred from voting. The constituency has
> > shown that it can generate funds, even in our current
> > relativelydisorganized state. With some forbearance
> > that amount will steadily grow. We see no reason why
> > DNSO would want to cut itself off from the funds that
> > we do generate.
> >
> > 3. Suspension of voting rights would undermine the
> > legitimacy and effectiveness of the DNSO.
> >
> > The DNSO was constructed to be a policy making body
> > that provides representation to the various interest
> > groups with a stake in domain name issues. It cannot
> > fulfill that function unless all groups are
> > represented. The DNSO has already received widespread
> > criticism for imbalances in its representational
> > structure. To eliminate the voting rights of the
> > entire noncommercial sector because of a temporary
> > monetary shortfall that does not impair the DNSO's or
> > ICANN's ability to function would be perceived by the
> > rest of the world as small-minded. It would
> > undermine the only raison d'etre of the DNSO, which is
> > a mechanism for generating bottom-up consensus among
> > affected stakeholders.
> >
> > 4. Unrealistic expectations.
> > While we accept and are trying to meet our financial
> > obligations to DNSO, the NCDNHC is not composed of
> > organizations that generate multi-million dollar
> > revenue streams by means of domain names, nor is it
> > composed of large-scale telecommunication or content
> > producer businesses for whom lobbying is a routine cost
> > of business. It is therefore not realistic to apply
> > the same financial support standards to us as to the
> > other constituencies.
> >
> > To conclude, there are strong and sufficient
> > reasons for the sanctions NOT to be applied in this
> > case. We hope that the Names Council as a whole will
> > vote that way at its upcoming meetings.
> >
> > Milton Mueller
> > YJ Park
> > Dany Vandromme
> > Thierry Amoussougbo
> >
> > NCDNHC Adcom
> >
> >
> 
>