[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Membership] Fees for Organizations

At 11:07 5/05/1999 -0400, Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote:
>Hash: SHA1
>I would suggest extreme caution.  There have been several mentions in
>this thread about the constituency groups collecting ICANN dues.  This
>is not the responsibility of the constituency groups, nor was there
>any mention of forming a collection process as part of the
>constituency groups formation.

If not ICANN dues, then at least DNSO dues.

>From the proposed draft constitution of the DNSO.ORG registrars constituency:

>V Funding
>1. The Registrar Constituency members shall arrange any necessary finance for
>the constituency in a manner to be agreed by the Constituency. 
>2. The Registrar Constituency shall participate in the DNSO funding in the
>decided by the Names Council

This appears to be a blank cheque given to the Names Council. It guarantees
a very uneven position on the Names Council for the Individual Domain Name
Owner's constituency, that initially will be struggling to fund even it's
own functioning.

Thus, expect the DN owners to be told to shoo off to the at-large
membership, where their interests can be diluted in the sea of general and
conflicting concerns of all-the-world's-internet-users.
And never mind that the registries and registrars hold them hostage with
yearly "licence fees".

>- -----Original Message-----
>From: edyson@edventure.com [mailto:edyson@edventure.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 02, 1999 12:12 PM
>To: Michael Sondow
>Cc: Diane Cabell; Membership
>Subject: Re: [Membership] Fees for Organizations
>so make it a smaller percentage of revenues, or define it differently.
>go with your second paragraph.
>At 03:09 PM 01/05/99 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
<snip, the second paragraph follows>

>>Lest ICANN fall into the position of the tax-collector,
>>across-the-board fees are more feasible.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners