Re: [nc-budget] MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR RESOLUTION OF TODAY

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

wording is fine with me also

ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
To: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>; "'Erica Roberts'"
<erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; <nc-budget@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-budget] MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR RESOLUTION OF TODAY


> the wording is fine with me
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-budget@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-budget@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Cochetti, Roger
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:40 PM
> To: 'Erica Roberts'; Cochetti, Roger; nc-budget@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-budget] MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR RESOLUTION OF TODAY
>
>
> It seems to me that the changes that Erica's version makes are to
recognize
> that
>
> (1) ICANN management currently administers the DNSO's assessed dues (so
she
> says "in the event that ICANN management is no longer willing..."; and
> (2) our decision regarding the fallback to the French non-profit related
to
> the voluntary funds, and not necessarily the assessed dues.
>
> If anyone objects to Erica's slight re-wording of the decision that we
made,
> please let me know as soon as possible.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:36 PM
> To: Cochetti, Roger; nc-budget@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-budget] MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR RESOLUTION OF TODAY
>
> Tho I have one or two reservations, I think the gist of this is
> substantially correct.  However, thr tone strikes me as decidely
> threatening - tho I'm sure this is not what was intended - so I would
> suggest changes as detailed below.
>
> On the substantive issue, it seems from the text you have drafted that we
> are concerned only about the voluntary funds and not the subscription
funds.
> However, since we have provisionally agreed that  the voluntary funds will
> be administered by the French, by default, ICANN retains the management of
> the subscription funds.   I think we need to clarify that ICANN management
> of these funds will be in accordance with the terms set out below.
>
> I suggest the following changes in the text which I hope are agreeable to
> all and reflect the sentiment of the meeting.
>
> The NC Budget Committee resolves to accept the offer by ICANN to
administer
> DNSO funds on the understanding that:
> * ICANN will charge no administration fee
> * that ICANN management will dispense these funds according to
instructions
> from the Names Council or its designee, unless ICANN formally notifies the
> Names Council and its Budget Committee that  to do so would either be
> illegal or jeopardize ICANN's tax status.
>
> To ensure that arrangements for the administration of DNSO funds are
> completed in a timely manner, the Budget Committee requests ICANN
> confirmation within 5 days to the arrangements outlined above.
>
> The Budget Committee further resolves that, in the event that ICANN is no
> longer willing to manage DNSO funds, it will  proceed with the
establishment
> of a custodial relationship for its voluntary funds by a non-profit
> corporation that would be organized in, and under the laws of, France;
> recognizing that this French non-profit organization may establish a bank
> account for the DNSO's voluntary fund with a bank either inside or
> outside of France.
>
>
> erica
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
> To: <nc-budget@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:33 AM
> Subject: [nc-budget] MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR RESOLUTION OF TODAY
>
>
> >
> >
> > The Budget Committee hereby decides to accept the offer of ICANN
> Management
> > to administer the funds voluntarily collected for the DNSO at no charge
to
> > the DNSO, understanding, however, that ICANN management will dispense
> these
> > funds according to instructions from the Names Council or its designee,
> > unless ICANN management formally notifies the Names Council and its
Budget
> > Committee that it cannot dispense funds as directed by the Names Council
> or
> > its designee because to do so would either be illegal or jeopardize
> ICANN's
> > tax status.
> >
> > Moreover, if ICANN management does not accept this proposal within five
> days
> > of its delivery to them, the Budget Committee decides >
>
>