[ncdnhc-discuss] DNSO "dues" and voting rights

[Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski]

> > Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski <iczycykowski at aip.de> 10/02/02 04:44PM
> >real reason is that we simply don't have the money and never will.

On 3 Oct 2002 at 1:17, Milton Mueller wrote:
> You're wrong, sorry, that "we don't have the money and we never
> will."  My organization could easily afford to pay $100 again, or
> even more. I simply won't do it.

I don't mind being wrong. But, according to
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020905.ICANN-DNSO-finances-recap.html
since 2000 (as 1999 was a special) we so far paid $6375 while they
wanted from us a total of $43,008 (plus a $949 penalty). We no longer
have to pay for 2000 afaik, so the total minus of $37,500 is purely
virtual. If we consider 2001 as outstanding, according to the books we
have to raise $23,939.60 within three months. For me, this seems close
enough to "never will". We should better admit that we are not able to
raise the same share as the others, or this will be an never ending
story. Harold told us that the problem is beeing discussed by the
council. We'll see what happens.

By the way: The table above combined with
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021003.ICANN-DNSO-finances-status.html
also tells us what Harold wrote: There is enough money for the 2002
expenses, so it seems that no one has to starve because we cannot pay.
Costs are rising quickly, though.

> Iliya probably doesn't know that there is a major debate within DNSO
> about whether it makes sense to have ANY constituency pay these
> silly dues, or whether the money for ICANN's policy formation should
> be part of ICANN's budget, and the constituencies should concentrate
> on what they are supposed to do, namely make policy, rather than
> annual fundraising drives. All constituencies but registries and
> registrars agree with me that it should be part of ICANN's budget.

I didn't follow that DNSO debate in detail, (I should post less) but:
d'accord! It's cheap but I can't resist the following:  :-) It is
quite alike what I said when I opposed to the payments in Stockholm.
Anyway, I think there is not too much to discuss here, as few people
will ever oppose to *not* paying something. Icann can very well do
this and should. I would be happy to agree to any resolution of that
kind. I do think the timing could have been better.

One more remark: One aspect of a DNSO secretariat was, or that's what
I gathered, to move some executive resources away from the too
US-centered Icann staff. I am more in favour of attacking things at
the root, but it is still to be taken into account.

> Note that ICANN declined to let ITU cover some of the
> costs of GAC, and insisted on allocating $45,000 of its own
> funds to support GAC secretariat.
What the ITU did was like Daimler-Chrysler offering to provide the
corporate cars for the Volkswagen strategic studies division.

Does anybody have connections to the ITU? Maybe they can make the same
offer to the DNSO to speed up Icann's support...   :-)

	--iliya