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

[J. Scott Evans]

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
>
>