ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-budget]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-budget] Report on DNSO Finances


Roger:

When Erica replied and talked about that no one requested for forgiveness in
past debts, I also replied asking
if it was possible to ask for such forgiveness and no one answered me.

Since also I waited for a reasonable time to someone answer me this question
and no one answered me, then I
sent my dissent about your proposal.

My apologizes if this was outside a timeframe.   My suggestion for future
inquires is that it is stablished a deadline for send answers.

Thank you Roger for understand and for contact Louis and Diane about the actual
situation.

Best Regards
Vany

"Cochetti, Roger" wrote:

> Vany-
>
> After I sent out my first note on this topic, I waited a reasonable time to
> see obtain Budget Committee member's reactions and, receiving no objections,
> concluded that the Committee had reached a decision without the need for a
> meeting.
>
> My normal practice, as you know, is to only conclude e-mail votes in the
> Budget Committee when there is no dissent.  If there is any dissent, then I
> prefer to take the matter up in a teleconference meeting so that we can
> exchange views and conduct a vote.
>
> I wish that you had informed me of your position before I notified Louis and
> Diane that we had reached a conclusion, but now that you have done so and
> dissented, I must rescind my earlier notice to Louis and Diane and advise
> them and the Budget Committee that this matter has not concluded and is
> still pending before the Budget Committee.
>
> We will now take this matter up and vote on it at our next meeting.
>
> Roger
>
> Roger J. Cochetti
> Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> VeriSign
> (202) 973-6600
> rcochetti@verisign.com
>
> -----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

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>