[FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget

[Klaus Stoll]

Dear Milton, Der Friends

My replies in Green

From: Milton L Mueller 
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 6:02 PM
To: Klaus Stoll ; FC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
Subject: RE: [FC-NCSG] Thoughts on FC overall and Y13 budget

I will weigh in with a few thoughts here. 

 




 

b)     the Charter also suggests a voluntary membership fee. I think that might be not such a bad way to go if the right rules are applied. My proposal is: voluntary membership fee of USD 50 for individuals and small organizations,(as defined by the Charter Chapter 2.2.3, (less then 50 employees and less then 500 individual members, less then 10 organizational members), USD 500 mandatory membership fee for ?large organizations?. They can afford it and won?t feel it whilst for us it can make a big difference.

 

[Milton L Mueller] this would be a massive mistake, in my opinion. We tried this before, back in the pre-2003 reforms. First of all, you will lose about 90% of your membership, as most NGOs simply don?t have $500 to throw at ICANN. Indeed, the _real_ resource commitment organizations make to NCSG/their constituency is the time its employees spend on ICANN matters. That is worth far, far more than $500, and requiring them to make an upfront payment will simply prevent most of them from ever getting started. 



I can not see that point, does that mean that 90% of the existing membership have 50 employees and more and more then 500 individual members? Don?t think so. Should only those who can pay employees to spend time on ICANN matter shall have the advantage. I still think we need to spread the load and let the big ones help out the smaller NGO?s. 

 

But that?s actually the lesser of the two problems. The other problem is that whatever organizational capabilities we have, and they have, will be wasted on endless rounds of collecting, depositing, renewing the membership fees and converting currencies. By the time you collect $50, you have spent $100 or even $200 in time, fees and other resources. The amount of money raised in such a fashion is trivial. Think of the scalability of this, especially for constituencies that rely on dozens or hundreds of smaller members. It just doesn?t work. It?s a non-starter. 

 

I beg to differ! How much will it take to invoice ten big NGO?s and administer a account where the others can make their voluntary contributions? Bad organizational abilities do not justify waste of income.

 

There is a very simple solution to this. NCSG is actually composed of constituencies, not members. Since the financial needs of NCSG as an entity are quite small, it might want to require constituencies to pony up US$1000 or 2000 as a contribution to NCSG. 



Not quite so simple. NSCG is composed of members that can but do not have to be members of any constituency. (chapter 2 NCSG Charter) What looks like a simple solution is maybe putting the horse before the card. If I am wrong on this point please let me know and I stand corrected. 

 

c)      we should create a fundraising campaign and execute it that engages with and requests support from charitable organizations whose Vision/Mission and statues support the area of Internet Governance and not for profit organizations. I think there are a number out there , (like the Ford Foundation), who would support the NCSG?s work if we engage with the in the right way.

 

[Milton L Mueller] I have worked with Ford on this in the past, they funded IGP specifically to be engaged in this area from 2006-2010. The new Program Officer and President will not support activity in ICANN anymore. Their focus is not on global governance anymore and the current President wants more focus on domestic issues.



Thanks for that important info, there a other fish in the pond that want to be caught.

 

4) Now it comes to on what to spend the money, (and that is exactly the discussion that needs to happen in the future in the PC and EC not FC)

[Milton L Mueller] based on what you write below, there may be a general or philosophical difference in the way we approach this. IMHO, most of the ?action? is now in, and should remain in, the constituencies. It seems to me that your plans for funding NCSG would make it in effect a rival of the constituencies. We should avoid that. Financial needs of NCSG EC and as a SG are very simple. It just supports the basic administration and joint activities of the constituency leaderships.



Yes, the main point of difference is NCSG or constituencies. In my honest opinion it is NCSG first and the constituencies whilst representing their specific interests do so under the umbrella and mission/vision of the NCSG. Again, I might read the charter wrong, if not, I like to think that we are working for the common good of us all and not just our specific internet governance interests.  




ra)the old but every popular topic of NCSG representatives being able to participate in the ICANN meetings. I think there should be a simple rule that we need to fund minimum the participation of the Chair plus one person from each constituency, but the general rule should be Chair plus TWO from each constituency. If a representative eligible to go under the constituency terms has other funding to go his place should be passed on.

[Milton L Mueller] No objection to Chair + 1, or, if funds permit, Chair +2. But again, I think the real work needs to be done at the constituency level. 

 

d)     Talking about facts, 90% of what we need to do is still informing about what ICANN does and what opportunities the participation in it brings. NCSG should seek to hold webinars, lectures, information events and that needs funding.

 

[Milton L Mueller] I disagree. Constituencies need to do this, not NCSG. NCSG is just a thin administrative overlay. 



See above



I am looking forward for your contribution, comments and corrections.



Yours



Klaus

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/fc-ncsg/attachments/20120112/8de67d19/attachment.html>