[nc-budget] RE: REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE ON AFNIC INVOICE AND PROPOSED 2001 BUDGET

["Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>]

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cochetti, Roger  
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:23 AM
> To:	council@dnso.org
> Cc:	'DNSO budget'; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'
> Subject:	REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE ON AFNIC
> INVOICE AND  PROPOSED 2001 BUDGET 
> 
> TO:  ICANN DNSO NAMES COUNCIL
> 
> FROM:  ROGER COCHETTI, CHAIR NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE
> 
> 
> 	ICANN DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (DNSO) NAMES COUNCIL
> BUDGET COMMITTEE  REPORT 
> 
> 	TO THE ICANN DNSO NAMES COUNCIL
> 
> 	24 JANUARY 2001
> 
> 	During October, November, and January, the Names Council Budget
> Committee met four times to address, among other things, two important
> questions:  (1) What obligations, if any, does the DNSO have to AFNIC,
> which provided administrative support to the DNSO and the Names Council
> during 2000?; and (2) What should be the DNSO budget for 2001?
> 
> 	AFNIC PAYMENT
> 
> 	The Committee met with AFNIC on several occasions to clarify AFNIC's
> view of the DNSO's financial obligations to AFNIC and requested that AFNIC
> provide the Committee with an itemized statement of funds that AFNIC
> believes are due to it for services rendered by AFNIC to the DNSO during
> 2000.  AFNIC's representative explained that AFNIC had provided support
> services to the DNSO during 1999 at no charge, but that it had advised the
> DNSO that any services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO during 2000 would
> require some compensation (AFNIC states that it does not seek full
> commercial compensation for the services that it provided to the DNSO in
> 2000; only partial compensation.)
> 
> 	The Committee requested a statement from AFNIC by 30 November 2000
> for services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO from January through November
> 2000.  This Statement can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2000.AFNIC-DNSO.html . It indicates that
> the amount due to AFNIC from the DNSO is US $59,400.00.
> 
> 	The Committee examined the AFNIC statement in some detail an
> concluded that the full amount of the Statement should be paid by the DNSO
> to AFNIC, subject to three conditions:
> 
> 	(1) AFNIC provides the Committee with a clear statement that
> describes the intellectual property rights that the DNSO has acquired by
> virtues of the services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO during 2000; and
> 
> 	(2) AFNIC provides the Committee with an estimated allocation of the
> $59,400 among the various elements of the DNSO (Names Council, General
> Assembly, etc.); and 
> 
> 	(3) AFNIC agrees to continue to support the DNSO at the same level
> that it supported the DNSO during 2000, at no additional charge, for no
> more than three months beyond 1 January 2001 to permit the DNSO to
> properly procure support services for itself.
> 	 
> 	AFNIC has verbally indicated their acceptance of the third condition
> and not yet responded to the first two.
> 	 
> 	The Committee recommends that the Council adopt this approach and so
> authorize the payment to AFNIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 	2001 DNSO BUDGET
> 
> 	As indicated in the attached note to the Committee from ICANN
> management, as of 6 December 2000, the DNSO had received a cumulative
> $95,500 in payments from DNSO Constituencies during 1999 and 2000.  In
> addition to this amount, various DNSO constituencies have indicated that
> they would be providing additional payments against their dues fairly
> soon.  Whatever the amount collected, if the Budget Committee
> recommendation of a $59,400 DNSO payment to AFNIC is accepted (along with
> modest payments already made to the Berkman Center for services provided
> to the DNSO), this would leave a balance in the DNSO account of around
> $35,000 plus any additional funds collected after 6 December 2000.  These
> excess funds could obviously be applied to DNSO expenses in 2001.
> 
> 	In addition, as noted in previous Budget Committee reports to the
> Council, the Committee is in the process of structuring a "voluntary fund"
> that would be independently administered and that would be used to finance
> the cost of providing professional support services to the DNSO.  When
> this voluntary fund is established, donations may be made to it and
> VeriSign Global Registry Services has indicated that it would match all
> donations made to this fund up to $100,000.
> 
> 	As a result of the above, the Committee concluded that it would
> construct a proposed DNSO 2001 budget based on the assumptions that there
> would be at least a $35,000 carry over of funds from 2000 to 2001 and that
> the voluntary fund that is planned would come into operation and it would
> be used to cover the costs of professional support for the DNSO in 2001.
> Consequently, the Committee's budget analysis assumes that no funds from
> the regular budget are allocated for professional support and that in
> setting 2001 dues for the DNSO constituencies, a roughly $35,000 beginning
> DNSO balance should be presumed at 1 January 2001.
> 
> 	Using these assumptions, the Committee proposes  ( by a majority but
> not a unanimous vote) an expense budget for the DNSO for 2001 of $107,600,
> consisting of the following general categories of expense and the
> reservation of the $35,000 in unused funds from 2000 for contingency
> spending in 2001:
> 
> 	Administrative		$12,000
> 	Telecommunications	$18,100
> 	Travel			$25,500
> 	Web/Listserv Maintenance	$30,000
> 	Web casting			$0
> 	Language Translations	$10,000
> 	Professional Services 	$12,000
> 
> 
> 	In particular, the Committee notes that it is assuming that there is
> professional support staff for the DNSO during 2001 and that it has
> budgeted no funds for Web casting.
> 
> 	If this $107,600  expense budget is accepted, then the dues payment
> by each of the seven DNSO Constituencies during 2001 would be $15,371.
> 
> 
> 	CONSEQUENCES OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUES BY CONSTITUENCIES
> 
> 	The Committee has considered the issue of consequences of the
> non-payment of dues by DNSO Constituencies and believes that a graduated
> system of actions should be put in place that would be based on the
> duration of the arrearage.  Specific ideas will be discussed at the
> Council meeting.
> 	         
> 
> 
> 
> 	Roger J. Cochetti
> 	Senior Vice President-Policy
> 	VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc.
> 	rogerc@netsol.com <mailto:rogerc@netsol.com>
> 	(703) 326-2585
>