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

[Milton L Mueller]

From: Klaus Stoll [mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com]

My replies in Green
[Milton L Mueller] It?s really hard to read.


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.
[Milton L Mueller] No, 90% of the membership has less than 50 employees. But for these organizations ? and I speak from experience ? writing a check for $50 and sending it to a foreign recipient is a big deal. Endless administrative hassles are created by trying to keep track of who has paid and who hasn?t. I am sorry, but I don?t have time for that, and no one who really is interested in ICANN policy making wants to devote additional time to that. Besides, about 20% of that revenue is eaten up by the currency conversions and banking costs. If you account for people?s time, the processing of the check eats up most of the rest of the value. It?s a complete waste of time in the end ? generates no significant revenue, and acts as a major deterrent to joining.

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.
[Milton L Mueller] We are not talking about 10 big NGOs. We are talking about 30 or so big NGOs and hundreds of smaller ones, and individuals.

I proposed to require constituencies to pay up US$1000 or 2000 as a contribution to NCSG. [Milton L Mueller] You replied:

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.
[Milton L Mueller] It is simple. 95%-99% of NCSG are members of either NPOC or NCUC. That will continue. I don?t understand what it means to say this puts the horse before the cart. It seems to me that you are putting the horse before the cart. NCSG is just a think organizational overlay. It is very simple, efficient and productive to have constituencies pay ?dues? to support the NCSG. The idea of having two distinct levels of membership, with possibly fees or contributions at both levels, is putting the cart before the horse. The point is to contribute to policy development, not to build yet another organizational apparatus.

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)

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.
[Milton L Mueller] The fact that NCSG is supposed to represent noncommercial users as a whole does not mean that it has to erect a complicated and expensive administrative apparatus. The constituencies are doing fine as they are now. NCSG and its committees are just supposed to facilitate cooperation among the members and the constituencies on matters of common interest.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/fc-ncsg/attachments/20120113/71476262/attachment-0001.html>