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 -----
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