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

[Harold J. Feld]

Actually, I gather ICANN is something of a discussion at ITU pleininpot, 
but I don't think they are offering money. :-)

Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski wrote:

>>>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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
>