Re: [ALSC-Forum] Fund Raising vs. eligibility

[L Gallegos]

I really have to disagree, Sasha.  If the criteria for membership in 
the at-large is to be open, then it is absolutely unfair to assess the 
cost to domain name holders who already pay fees indirectly by 
registering in the first place.

There is always a price to pay for participation in decision making.  
I see no problem with membership dues for all and assessing 
registries for a couple of pennies to subsidize the shortfall in low 
membership dues.  If there were organized chapters globally, the 
collection cost problem would be much alleviated, but that, as you 
say, is for ICANN to devise.

If there were an at-large *membership* I would also be willing to bet 
that soliciting donations would be much easier also.  When the 
public *knows* they have a meaningful voice in decision making, 
they are less inclined to shut their wallets.  Organizations that 
favor public participation would also be more willing to contribute to 
the at-large operation.   It would go a long way toward good will and 
legitimacy.

I seriously doubt that ICANN will go that far.  The whole point so far 
has been to avoid public participation in any real sense.  As 
Representative Pickering said in February, ICANN was created to 
avoid the APA.  The APA gives the public a voice and prevents the 
government from doing things that are harmful to the public.  
ICANN is outside that jurisdiction deliberately.  The at-large would 
change the balance of power landscape considerably and the 
powers behind ICANN do not want that.

This forum is nothing more than a venting list.  It has no meaningful 
purpose other than to give the committee and ICANN the right to 
say they listened to comments.  It is not a working group.  Even if 
it were, the working groups have been manipulated, circumvented 
and largely ignored in the past.  The sunrise provisions in the TLD 
contracts are a perfect example.  

Again, Sasha, there is really no reason to avoid membership dues -
 small, with some help from for-profit registries.  It is a fair price to 
pay for participation in decision making.  When you pay to join 
something, it gives you a sense of responsibility to be heard.

Leah


On 5 Sep 2001, at 10:58, sasha wrote:

> It seems to me that we may be loosing focus on eligibility here.
> 
> Instead of charging people all over the world to vote which would
> create some HUGE collection problems, why don't we advise the "16+
> email postal address" criteria  for eligibility with no charges. Then 
> let the domain owners help fund ICANN.  It does not have to give them
> more dominion, it's just that if the registrars gave $.50 or whatever
> per registration/renewal to ICANN for their administrative costs.  It
> could be assessed monthly. There are a lot less fewer registrars than
> people, and it would be easier to administrate.
> 
> Or alternatively, they could "assess" for ISP connections.  That would
> eliminate objections from/about the domain owners.
> 
> There may be problems with non-profit corporation status and
> "assessing fees" but it would be more reasonable.
> 
> Excluded of course would be the "free ISP's;" or they could be forced
> to pay something from ad revenues which is why they are "free" to
> begin with.
> 
> If domain registration were used, ICANN already has the figures of who
> is registering what - it would be easy for them to administrate and a
> lot cheaper.
> 
> BUT it is ICANN's job to be raising funds - not ours.
> 
> Sasha
>