RE: [Membership] Fees for Organizations

["Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joop,

Agreed.  However, it is the Names Council, not ICANN, which would be
making the recommendations for funding.  Any discussion regarding
funding prior to the forming of the Names Council should be considered
rhetorical and premature.

There are other models which work.  I defer to the Names Council for
their consideration.

Gene...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 8:10 PM
To: Marsh, Miles (Gene); edyson@edventure.com; Michael Sondow
Cc: Diane Cabell; Membership; idno-l@userfriendly.net
Subject: RE: [Membership] Fees for Organizations


At 11:07 5/05/1999 -0400, Marsh, Miles (Gene) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Esther,
>
>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
way
>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.
>I.e.
>go with your second paragraph.
>
>esther
>
>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
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBNzDoyJHtPfG6xLnPEQKpygCeN5zQ9RoHSNYQIfUTGYtH0m/apI8An001
DcppbwTAvlZ1PJcSBzYA1jcr
=ZAUv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----