Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Danny, Dr. Dierker, and Karl all make good points.  As a matter of
remembrance, .EDU was a sole source contract to Mike Roberts,
just after he left his post as the first ICANN CEO.  This was hotly
discussed as I recall at that time [See archives of this list forum].

Hence, than Dr. Dierkers point is partly well made as well.  However
as ICANN is supposed to be a non-profit calif. Corp. and a point
that Dr. Dierker and I have frequently pointed out and have had
some problems as to how it garners it's operationg capital/funding,
having a "Contract" that includes a business element or clauses,
would seem to violate the legal requirements for a a 501 C3 corp.

Also hence, as Karl is also partly correct in his concern, that being
no need for a contract misses his own stated suggested requirement
that some stated but yet defined fully defined technical requirements.
Hence a contract of that sort is or should be required.

Danny Younger wrote:

> Eric,
>
> As far as I can tell, the only reason that there have
> been negotiations has been to secure an adequate
> funding stream for ICANN.  This has been a point of
> concern to the DOC -- in Amendment 6 to the MOU they
> state:  "Develop and implement a financial strategy
> that explores options for securing more predictable
> and sustainable sources of revenue".
>
> Now that ICANN has a predictable and sustainable
> source of revenue, additional revenue generating
> contracts aren't required.  New gTLDs could
> voluntarily donate funds to compensate for services
> rendered (much like the ccTLDs) instead of being
> required by contract to make such payments.
>
> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to burst yours and Karls' bubble (although i
> > think Karl was writing in the abstract)
> >
> >   The easy reason is that there has to be
> > negotiations because ICANN says so. If you do not
> > like that, get public support to change it.
> > Otherwise, complain all you want, but, live with it.
> > Should is usually a term used by those without power
> > to explain what actions those in power "should"
> > take. The only proper question here is "Why are
> > there negotiations."
> >
> >   e
> >
> > Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   Karl raises a very good point: "Why the ^%!~
> > should
> > there be "negotiations"?"
> >
> > Why is there the presumption that new gTLDs will
> > necessarily require a contract? The DNS currently
> > has
> > 264 TLDs. ICANN has contracts only with 18 of those
> > sponsoring organizations. Over 93% of all TLD
> > sponsors have no contract with ICANN.
> >
> > One should also note that ICANN has no contract with
> > the sponsors of .edu, .mil, .int, or .gov.
> >
> > Why then should a new gTLD sponsor be required to
> > sign
> > a contract? Where is the community consensus that
> > this is a necessity?
> >
> > What if members of Civil Society decided to launch a
> > .SUCKS domain and told ICANN that they would not be
> > prepared to accept a contract? Would .SUCKS ever be
> > entered into the root? Would a failure to enter an
> > approved domain into the root owing to a lack of a
> > negotiated contract constitute restraint of trade?
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827