Re: [nc-budget] NC meeting Feb 8

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I agree with Phillip that the general feeling at the NC was satisfaction with the proposed budget (in broad terms) but concern over arrangements for constituency subscriptions. .  My reading of that meeting was that many people abstained because the issues relating to constituency fees were not sufficiently understood or discussed. 

I don't think we should regard this as a major set back - and I would like to recognize the great job Roger has done as Chair of the Budget Committee.  But, it seems, we have just a little way further to go.

  I don't  understand the options Phillip has suggested below, but it is pretty clear that we need to address the issue of subsidising constituencies which genuinely have something unique to contribute to the ICANN process but have real funding difficulties.  One option I would like to suggest is roughly as follows:

1. All constituencies should be billed for the same amount but should also be given the right to 'show cause' why they should receive a fee subsidy.

2. Constituencies applying for a fee subsidy should be required to identify the unique nature of their contribution to the ICANN/DNSO process, and describe what measures they have taken to raise the funds to cover the fees levied on all constituencies. 

3.  Such applications should be considered by the NC on a case by case basis. 

4. If the NC is satisfied that the constituency is making a valuable contribution to the ICANN/DNSO process and has made all reasonable attempts to raise the necessary funds, then the NC should formally pass a motion agreeing to reduce the fee for that constituency for a specified period and reduce the budget  contingency allocation by a corresponding amount.

5. The NC should formally advise both the ICANN Board and the DNSO constituencies of its decision. 

An approach of this kind would ensure the fee subsidies for constituencies can be provided but only under exceptional circumstances and in accordance with open and transparent processes. 

 

While this may not be a perfect solution (is there any such thing?), it may provide a way of accomodating the different concerns expressed by the NC representatives of the different constituencies.

 

What do others think?

 

erica

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Philip Sheppard

To: DNSO budget

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:53 PM

Subject: [nc-budget] NC meeting Feb 8

Roger et al,

 

1. Now that I am NC chair I would like to follow the example of Ken who remained an observer to the budget committee but not an active participant. As such I will intercede from time to time but exempt myself from Budget committee votes, proposals etc.

 

2. As you know the NC rejected (by abstentions) the budget committee proposal on the 2001 subs and will be revisiting the item on Feb 8.

"Item1: Budget Committee - revisiting the recommendation on 2001 budget and
     constituency contributions (Roger Cochetti) - 30 mins"
       

The NC seemed to have no problem with the proposed 2001 budget but indicated concern on the question of constituency subs.

 

Could I ask the budget committee to prepare three options for the NC to discuss.

Option 1: the previous proposal (= 2001 budget less voluntary shared by 7)

 

Option 2: a new proposal (=2001 budget less voluntary less surplus of subs 1999 and 2000 RECEIVED as at 31 Jan 2001 shared by 7).

 

Option 3: a new proposal (=2001 budget less voluntary less surplus of subs 1999 and 2000 REQUESTED shared by 7).

 

Please indicate the advantages/disadvantages of each option.

 

Philip.

 

 

 

Philip Sheppard
AIM - European Brands Association
9  av. des Gaulois  B-1040 Brussels
Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702