<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-budget] RE: DRAFT REPORT OF BUDGET COMMITTEE TO NAMES COUNCIL
The content looks pretty accurate to me. It's not really critical but we
might want to change the new budget category 'Technical Services' to
'Secretariat & Technical Services' or 'Information Management & Technical
Services' to make it consistent with our current RFP and the total services
that AFNIC and Elisabeth are providing.
Also, because it has been quite awhile since the NC prepared the budget, it
might be a good idea to provide brief descriptions for some of the budget
catgegories that are not intuitively clear (e.g., Admin and Professional
Services). This would not only help in the NC but would also make the
report clearer for others outside the NC when they read the report.
Finally, it would be a good idea to do a spell check and do a quick
editorial check of the report to fix a few grammatical problems.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cochetti, Roger
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:01 AM
> To: nc-budget@dnso.org
> Subject: DRAFT REPORT OF BUDGET COMMITTEE TO NAMES COUNCIL
>
> Attached is a draft Committee Report to the Names Council. Please provide
> me with any comments/edits by COB EST on Wednesday, 8 August.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> REPORT OF THE NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE
>
> The Names Council Budget Committee met twice since that last Council
> meeting and addressed three important topics:
>
> 1) The status of dues payments by Constituencies pursuant to
> the new procedures adopted by the Council for failures to pay; and
>
> 2) The status and outlook of the campaign to generate voluntary
> donations to the DNSO; and
>
> 3) Revisions to the spending allocations under the DNSO's 2001
> budget.
>
> A brief report on each follows.
>
>
> 1. STATUS OF DUES PAYMENTS BY DNSO CONSTITUENCIES
>
> In an effort to improve the payment of DNSO mandatory dues by
> Constituencies, on the Committee's recommendation, the Council adopted the
> following procedures earlier this year:
>
> NC PROCEDURES FOR CONSTITUENCIES PAYMENT OF DUES
> Regarding the procedures of the Budget Committee, the
> Committee decided that its meetings should not be routinely open, but
> rather should be open to members of the Committee and any member of the
> Names Council who would like to observe. The Committee reached this
> conclusion because:
> (1) it often discusses financially sensitive
> information; (2) members felt that the work of the Committee would benefit
> greatly by an atmosphere in which innovative ideas could be floated; and
> most importantly, (3) all of the Committee's reports to the Council and
> actions by the Council are publicly accessible.
>
> Regarding procedures to address the failure of DNSO
> Constituencies to pay their assessed dues, the Committee discussed this
> matter during three different meetings and in its January meeting agreed
> to propose to the Council the following procedures:
> >From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to representatives
> of
> Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or its agent by:
> ** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another
> invoice
> ** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the
> delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website
> ** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice"
> (in which they are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights in
> the Names Council should not be suspended) and they are charged a 5% late
> payment fee to cover the cost to the DNSO of the cost of money. The 5%
> penalty is added to that Constituency's dues for the next (not the
> current) DNSO budget year.
> ** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and
> charged an additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a
> added
> payment for their next year's DNSO dues
> ** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to
> participate, of that Constituency's representatives to the Names Council
> are suspended until such time as the DNSO or its agent receives all past
> due amounts including the varies late payment fees.
>
>
> On July 11th, ICANN management reported the following status of dues
> payments by DNSO Constituencies for 2000 and 2001 (The DNSO operates on a
> January-to-January, calendar year. So, 1st Call refers to 1999, 2nd Call
> to 2000, and 3rd Call to 2001):
>
> > Amounts in US$.
> >
> > Receipts:
> > 1st Call
> 2nd Call 3d Call Total Recd
>
> > Business Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
> $0.00 $18,642.86
> > ccTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $1,292.59
> $0.00 $6,292.59
> > gTLD Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
> $15,371.00 $34,013.86
> > IP Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
> $15,371.00 $34,013.86
> > ISP Constituency $5,000.00 $0.00
> $0.00 $5,000.00
> > NCDNHC $5,000.00 $0.00
> $50.00 $5,050.00
> > Registrars Constituency $5,000.00 $13,642.86
> $16,857.14 $35,500.00
> > Total Paid $35,000.00 $55,864.03
> $47,649.14 $138,513.17
> > Total Called For $35,000.00 $95,500.00
> $107,597.00
> >
> > Other Donations
> $9,050.00
> > Constituency Donations
> $138,513.17
> > Total Donations
> $147,563.17
> > Earned Interest &
> > (Bank Charges)
> $1,487.46
> > Disbursements
> $(14,008.16)
> > Total Funds on Hand
> $135,042.47
>
>
> In addition, ICANN management reported that invoices for all DNSO
> Constituencies, except the Non-Commercial Constituency, had been sent out
> on April 18, 2001. (The NCDNHC invoices is being sent out by ICANN
> management this week.) According to this report, three Constituencies (
> ccTLDs, ISPs, and NC) have failed to pays their dues from 2001 and the
> same three Constituencies, along with one more (Business Constituency)
> have failed to pay their deus for 2001.
> Importantly, the Committee took note of the fact that since the 2001
> invoices were sent out on April 18th, the DNSO had failed to send out to
> Constituencies 30, 60, or 90 day notices as provided in the procedures
> (There was some confusion with ICANN management on this matter, which
> resulted in the failure by the DNSO to act.)
> Under these circumstances the Committee addressed two questions: (1) Did
> the Council intend that arrearages resulting from Constituencies failure
> to pay dues that were invoiced during 2000 would trigger the new
> procedures (or do the new procedures only apply to dues invoiced in 2001
> and later/). On this question, the Committee concluded that the new
> procedures do not apply to invoices prior to 2001; and (2) Does the
> failure by four Constituencies to pay their 2001 dues trigger any of the
> actions envision in the new plan notwithstanding that the DNSO failed to
> provide the follow-up notices that were contemplated under the plan. On
> this question, the Committee concluded that since the DNSO had failed to
> provide 30, 60, and 90 day notices as contemplated under the plan, then
> Constituencies that were invoiced on April 18, 2001 should not be held
> liable under the terms of plan. Accordingly, the Committee decided to
> have the 30 day notices sent out as soon as possible by ICANN management
> and recognized that the 60, 90, 120, and 180 day penalties would kick in
> over 30 day increments after the 30 day notices were actually sent.
>
>
> 2. STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF THE CAMPAIGN TO
> GENERATE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS TO THE DNSO
>
> The Committee discussed the state of the current campaign to generate
> voluntary donations to the DNSO. (These will be used by the DNSO to cover
> the costs of providing professional support for the DNSO and such
> donations will be matched by the VeriSign Registry on a dollar-for-dollar
> basis up to $100K.) Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of
> July.
> The Committee again encourages each Constituency to request that its
> members donate funds to the DNSO to permit it to operate more
> professionally and competently. (If each member organization of each
> Constituency would donate to the DNSO one tenth of the amount of money
> that they spend on travel/entertainment for ICANN meetings, then the
> Budget Committee's goal of raising $60,000 --or $120,000 after the
> VeriSign Registry match-would easily be met!!)
> The Committee gratefully accepted four volunteers who stepped forward and
> agreed to serve as DNSO fundraising chairs: One will focus on donations
> from outside of the DNSO and three will focus on donations from members of
> the Constituencies. Together, they make up a new fund-raising work group
> of the Budget Committee.
>
>
> 3. REVISIONS TO THE SPENDING ALLOCATIONS UNDER
> THE DNSO'S 2001 BUDGET
>
> The Committee re-examined the spending categories and allocations that
> were approved by the Council for the DNSO's 2001 Expense Budget and
> recommends several changes to the Council in light of changed
> circumstances. (Thus far this year, the DNSO has spent around $37,000,
> mostly in charges from AFNIC for the provision of technical management
> services) These proposed changes DO NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL DNSO SPENDING
> and THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF DUES. The proposed changes re-name
> of category and re-allocate spending among the several categories.
>
> The original 2001 DNSO Budget is
>
> > Administrative $12,000
> > Telecommunications $18,100
> > Travel $25,500
> > Web/Listserv Maintenance $30,000
> > Language Translations $10,000
> > Professional Services $12,000
> Contingency $35,000
>
>
> The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
>
> Admin $12,000
> Telecom $18,100
> Travel $10,000
> Technical Services $70,000
> Language Translations $5,000
> Professional Services $5,000
> Contingency $22,500
>
> Essentially, these changes re-label the category "Web/Listserv
> Maintenance" to Technical Services and re-allocate an additional $40,000
> to that category, with the reductions coming from Contingency, Travel, and
> Language Translations. The under-spending in these categories mainly
> reflects the fact that the increase in professional support that was
> envisioned for the DNSO has not occurred by mid-year.
>
>
> Roger Cochetti, Chair
> Names Council Budget Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger J. Cochetti
> Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer
> VeriSign
> rcochetti@verisign.com
> 202-973-6600
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|