RE: [nc-budget] Report on DNSO Finances

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Vany,

>From a business point of view, I don't think it would be wise to credit
payments toward newer bills, but let me suggest that the NCDNH constituency
request an exception to the policy for some specified period of time as the
NCDNH continues to work on this.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: Cochetti, Roger
> Cc: 'Diane Schroeder'; 'Louis Touton'; 'nc-budget@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [nc-budget] Report on DNSO Finances
> 
> 
> Roger and Louis:
> 
> I don't support this practice.
> 
> We are having a hard time collecting the funds for the year 
> 2001.   Futher, we
> are very worried about what will be the budget for 2002 since 
> our capacity of
> payment is very limited...We are not ignoring that there are 
> debts for 2000,
> however this policy will
> affect our voting rights, meaning that no matter whatever 
> efforts we make,
> anyway we will loose voting rights.
> 
> How can we sensibilize all of you of our situation?  We are 
> collecting the
> funds, ICANN is helping us with invoices to our members, 
> since for us is not
> enough an invoice for the constituency.  Every organization 
> needs a separate
> invoice for the amount the will
> be willing to give, because as you may know, in non-profit 
> organizations
> procedures are different are there is less flexibility in this
> subject.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany
> 
> "Cochetti, Roger" wrote:
> 
> > A majority of the Budget Committee has responded, with no 
> member objecting,
> > in support of financial practice under which DNSO 
> Constituency payments are
> > credited towards the oldest outstanding debt.
> >
> > Please revise the tables accordingly.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Roger J. Cochetti
> > Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer
> > VeriSign
> > rcochetti@verisign.com
> > 202-973-6600
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cochetti, Roger
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:01 PM
> > To: nc-budget@dnso.org
> > Cc: Diane Schroeder; 'Louis Touton'
> > Subject: RE: [nc-budget] Report on DNSO Finances
> >
> > Louis' questions is significant because, according to a 
> Council decision in
> > August, it is only for the third call (DNSO dues that were 
> assessed in 2001)
> > that the sanctions program for non-payers applies.  
> Moreover, it would
> > establish a precedent on how we treat partial payments.
> >
> > In normal commercial practice, if an creditor has several 
> outstanding
> > balances from a non-payer and the non-payer makes a partial 
> payment, then
> > that partial payment is credited towards the oldest debt.  
> According to this
> > practice, payments received by non-paying Constituencies 
> during 2001 would
> > be credited towards 2000 dues, until those 2000 dues are fully paid.
> >
> > While I believe that some Constituencies may intend to make 
> payments towards
> > their 2001 DNSO debts in expectation that they can abandon 
> their 2000 DNSO
> > debts altogether, I do not believe that it is good practice 
> to permit this
> > to happen because it would encourage the abandonment of old 
> debts to the
> > DNSO and only the payment of current debts.  Thus, I 
> suggest that we follow
> > the widely-used practice of crediting any payments received 
> towards the
> > oldest debt.
> >
> > This would differ from the practice used in the attached 
> table and cause it
> > to be revised.
> >
> > I'd appreciate your thoughts.
> >
> > Roger J. Cochetti
> > Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> > VeriSign
> > (202) 973-6600
> > rcochetti@verisign.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:40 PM
> > To: nc-budget@dnso.org
> > Cc: Diane Schroeder
> > Subject: [nc-budget] Report on DNSO Finances
> >
> > To the Names Council Budget Committee:
> >
> > Here is a summary of DNSO finances handled by ICANN staff through 7
> > November 2001.  Please note that amounts paid by the ISP and
> > noncommercial constituencies have been attributed to the third call,
> > even though these constituencies have not fully satisfied the second
> > call.  In the case of the ISP constituency, this was 
> because the amount
> > received matched the third call.  In the case of the noncommercial
> > constituency, this was because the the $150.00 was received 
> after the
> > third call was made.  If the budget committee believes 
> either of these
> > amounts should instead be attributed to the second call, 
> please let me
> > know.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Louis Touton
> >
> >                         1st Call      2nd Call       3d Call   Total
> > Recd
> > Business Constitutency $5,000.00    $13,642.86  $15,371.00  
> $34,013.86
> > ccTLD Constituency     $5,000.00     $5,168.59       ---    
> $10,168.59
> > 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         ---    $15,371.00  
> $20,371.00
> > NCDNHC                 $5,000.00                   $150.00  
>  $5,150.00
> > Registrar Constituency $5,000.00    $13,642.86  $25,107.14  
> $43,750.00
> > Total Paid            $35,000.00    $59,740.03  $86,741.14 
> $181,481.17
> > Total Called For      $35,000.00    $95,500.00 $107,597.00 
> $238,097.00
> >
> > Other Donations          $9,050.00
> > Constituency Donations $181,481.17
> > Total Donations        $190,531.17
> > Earned Interest          $2,763.95
> > Bank Charges              ($252.00)
> > Expenses Paid          ($19,725.09)
> > Total Available Funds  $173,318.03
> 
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> 
>