<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-budget] NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MATERIALS
Hi to all:
Well, it seems that I won't be able to participate of this
teleconference, so I hope that anyone in this group would be able to
read this message to be transmitted during the teleconference.
1. About AFNIC intellectual property issues: I have read the document
sent by Elizabeth and attached to the previous message sent by Roger
and I want to Congratulate AFNIC for such a proposal. Please, go ahead
with this. Also I want to add that if the adaptations made to the
voting software for the GA be added. Also I want to suggest to add the
following: "AFNIC hereby grants to ICANN a fully paid-up, perpetual,
irrevocable, non-transferable, worldwide license to use and have to be
used, for ICANN's and all structures within ICANN including any group
appointed or formed by ICANN Board and/or any SO or permanent groups
that are part of ICANN structure, and any other strucutre within ICANN
own purposes, the software listed in exhibit B...".
Of course is solely saying "ICANN's own purposes" is understood as
everything within ICANN (SOs, Committees, TFs, WG, Committees, etc),
then of course that it is not needed to clarify futher.
2. Is there any possibility for ICANN mirroring DNSO website? I think
this should be a practice in the future.
3. About credit Constituency payments (oldest vs newwest debts). I
want to request to the consideration of this committee NCDNHC special
situation. As Diane Schroeder can also tell you, we are in the process
of collecting money amongst our members, sending invoices, etc.
In fact, many of them needs hardcopy invoices and invitations etc, you
know that procedures in the Non-Commercial organizations are less
flexible than in commercial entities. So, please, consider not to apply
the collected money towards oldest debts since this would
prevent us from right to vote in the NC.
4. Also I want to make the formal request of forgiving NCDNHC debts of
the year 2000. This would make easier for us to collect funds for
2001 and 2002, since, and as you have realized if we are finally
collecting the money now at the end of 2001, then it would be difficult
to make that our members make another payment in two or in three months
for year 2002. The NCDNHC would appreaciate a lot your kindness and
help.
5. About GLenn invoices, I though we had approoved them already. For
the future, I think that we must be informed about the activity to be
made before execute it. For example, if a teleconference is made, then
previously advice of telephone rates, etc. I don't think she has to make
more calls than the ones that are for her participation in
teleconferences.
I though that ISP connectivity was Glen responsibility.
I think we must clarify what kind of expenses Glen can be charge to the
Names Council, and what kind of expenses she have to request for advice
to the Budget Committee in advance, because little expenses made month
by month probably can be the equivalent of the same amount to pay for
AFNIC, for example. We have to control both big and little expenses.
Of course, travel expenses are already clear for me.
I am agree with payment of invoice: N° 200111 MI, N° 200111 TC, N°
200111 TR and FACTURE N° F0111-06242
6. About 2002. The NCDNHC is not able to compromise more money, in
fact, the NCDNHC would like that Budget Committee works towards decrease
of the Budget to be payed by constituencies instead of an increase,
since we cannot guarantee to be able to collect more funds than
what was requested to us previous years.
Since Names Council aprooved already to contract Secretariat and ISP
Services, then we cannot be against such payments. However, we cannot
support more items in the Budget.
The Secretariat (Included AFNIC), Secretariat travel expenses and lets
say a line of $1000.00 for communications expenses regarding
teleconference calls to be made by the Secretariat, are the only Budget
I am agree to be made for 2002.
I propose anything else be gotten by sponsorship and I encourage this
Committee to work on sponsorships in advance. Of course, and also
hoping that ICANN aproove to support financially DNSO activities with
all the items proposed by Roger and Glen.
7. Contract with Lodger INC: I just would like to see advances and a
draft of the contract with Lodger INC (Secretariat and ISP serivces).
8. I read about Expenses Breakdown. I would like to know what is this
really and also when we authorized such jobs be executed (it seems to me
this expenses was outside the things we have to pay already to AFNIC for
their services), also when and where such jobs were executed and why.
Thank you!!
Best Regards
Vany
"Cochetti, Roger" wrote:
>
> This is to confirm the teleconference meeting of the Names Council Budget
> Committee scheduled for 8:00 -- 9:30 AM EST on Wednesday 19, December and to
> provide background materials for it.
>
> I propose five items for our agenda. My notes on the agenda follow:
>
> 1) Current financial report
> 2) Issues associated with current financial reports
> a) How to credit Constituency payments (oldest vs newest debts)
> b) Request from Registrar Constituency for a refund
> c) Notices to DNSO Constituencies for failure to pay dues
> 3) Four outstanding invoices from Glen de Saint Gery and AFNIC for 2002
> services (see attached note)
> 4) Administrative Matters
> a) Service contract with Glen de Saint Gery
> b) Payments previously authorized
> c) AFNIC intellectual property issues
> 5) 2002 DNSO Budget
>
> First, attached you will find a current financial statement for the DNSO.
> Please note that it continues to use the previous practice of crediting DNSO
> Constituencies' payments to the newest --as opposed to the oldest-- debt to
> the DNSO. Although we have not addressed this issue one way or another, it
> seemed to me that for constituency, we should continue to view financial
> reports formatted in this manner until we decide whether payments should be
> credited to the oldest or the newest debt to the DNSO.
>
> Second, these tables reflect a payment of $28,107.14 by the Registrars
> Constituency to the DNSO for 2001 dues (vs an assessment of $15,371.00)
> Representatives of the Registrar Constituency have advised the Committee
> that the $28,107.14 payment reflects an error and that they would like the
> Council to refund $12,736.14 to them (see attached exchange of notes between
> me and Bryan Evans.) Registrar Constituency representatives indicate that
> the larger amount includes payments from individual registrars to the DNSO
> Registrar Constituency itself along with Constituency dues payments to
> ICANN. The situation is complicated by three considerations, however:
>
> 1) ICANN management indicates that it has no agreement with
> individual registrars or the Registrar Constituency for ICANN
> management to collect and administer registrar dues payments to the
> Registrar Constituency. Thus, they must assume that any payments
> that they receive from registrars for the DNSO are intended for the DNSO
> itself. Thus, ICANN management takes the view that it has no authority
> to withhold any funds apparently received for the DNSO and they
> require the Names Council to give them some guidance on this; and
>
> 2) While representatives of the Registrar Constituency represent to
> us without qualification that the funds that ICANN management has
> received from registrars are partly intended for the Registrar Constituency,
> these funds were actually paid by individual registrars and we have no
> direct indication of the intent of how the funds should be used from each
> paying registrar; and
>
> 3) The Council established a precedent in 2000 that funds mistakenly
> paid by a Constituency to the DNSO would not be refunded to that
> Constituency, but rather would be credited by the DNSO to future dues
> payments from that Constituency.
>
> Consequently, we need to decide how we should respond to the request from
> the Registrar Constituency.
>
> Third, we have a few administrative items to address with ICANN management,
> including the status of
>
> 1) the ICANN contract (on behalf of the DNSO) with Glen De Saint
> Gery
> 2) payments authorized by the Names Council
> 3) the intellectual property rights provisions of the 2000 AFNIC
> arrangement (see attached e-mail from Louis Touton)
>
> To help us address these items, I have asked Louis Touton to join the call
> from 8:30 AM EST until around 9:00 EST.
>
> Fourth, we need to complete work on the DNSO's 2002 budget. In this
> context, I attach a revised proposal for a 2002 DNSO budget that is based
> informal conversations with Committee members. Among many others, two
> factors need to be considered when we take this item up:
>
> 1) ICANN management has advised us that they believe that it is
> prudent and necessary for the DNSO to plan on always having a minimum
> cash reserve in its accounts of $30,000. Moreover in part because of
> concerns over their own possible liability for DNSO financial
> obligations, ICANN management has advised us that if the DNSO accounts were
> planned to go below $30,000 or actually did go below $30,000, then ICANN
> management would exercise its option to terminate its administration of
> the funds for the DNSO. Under these circumstances, since our 2002 budget
> would normally be designed to be fully spent by year-end, if we do not
> add a $30,000 "permanent reserve" into our requirements for 2002, then we
> would probably fall below ICANN management's minimum cash reserve
> requirements sometime around August 2002. Based on ICANN management's
> notice to us, unless we add this "permanent reserve" to the 2002 DNSO
> budget, they apparently reserve the right to terminate their
> administrative relationship with us at any time without further notice. For
> this reason, my attached 2002 budget proposal now includes a new item of
> a $30,000 "permanent reserve"; and
>
> 2) The Names Council at its last meeting approved a resolution
> requesting that ICANN appropriate from its 2002-2003 funds $170,000 to
> cover the operating expenses of the DNSO for 2002. We have no reaction or
> response from ICANN management or the ICANN Board on this request, other
> than an acknowledgement of it. Consequently, I believe that we have
> no alternative other than to proceed on the assumption that Names Council's
> request is not agreed to and to develop a 2002 DNSO budget of our
> own. Obviously, if ICANN accepts the Names Council's request, we will have
> to alter our course at that time.
>
> I have asked Louis Touton to be available to answer any questions on ICANN
> management's notice to us on the need for a $30,000 permanent reserve and,
> to the extent that he can, comment on the status of ICANN management and
> Board review of the Names Council request for a $170,000 ICANN appropriation
> to the DNSO during their 2002-2003 budget year.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Cochetti
> Chair
> Names Council Budget Committee
>
>
>
> Roger J. Cochetti
> Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> VeriSign
> (202) 973-6600
> rcochetti@verisign.com
>
> PROPOSED DNSO 2002 BUDGET (1 January 2002 -- 31 December 2002)
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Current funds $144K
>
> Rough Commitments Against Current Funds Through EOY 2001
>
> AFNIC '00 $59K
> AFNIC '01 $40K
> Other $ 4K
> TOTAL $103K
>
> Projected surplus of Funds at Year-End 2001 $41K
>
> =======================================================================
>
> PROJECTED DNSO EXPENSES IN 2002: MINIMUM
>
> Secretariat (including AFNIC) $70K
>
> Connectivity $10 K
>
> Telephone $15K
>
> Secretariat Travel $15K
>
> Misc $30K
>
> Permanent Reserve $30K
>
> TOTAL $170K
>
> LESS 2001 CARRYOVER -$41K
>
> ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED $129K
>
> PER CONSTITUENCY (7) $18.4K
>
> POTENTIAL ADDED EXPENSES
>
> Partial Staff Support $50K
> ($7.2K/Constituency)
>
> Web casting $50K
>
> Translation Services $50K
>
> Full Staff Support $120K
> ($17.1K/Constituency)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: DNSO Recap.xls
> DNSO Recap.xls Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet (application/vnd.ms-excel)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: Registrars Constituency
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:40:19 -0500
> From: Bryan Evans <bevans@interaccess.com>
> Reply-To: Bryan.Evans@algx.com
> To: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
> CC: "Glen De Saint Gery (E-mail)" <gcore@wanadoo.fr>, Diane Schroeder
> <schroeder@icann.org>, "Louis Touton (E-mail)" <touton@icann.org>,
> Andrew McLaughlin <mclaughlin@pobox.com>, "Michael D. Palage"
> <michael@palage.com>
>
> Unfortunately, the CC list just keeps growing. I apologize for bringing
> so many people into this discussion, but I think we have a serious problem
> we need to untangle.
>
> Obviously, I'm coming in to this situation a little blind, since I've
> only recently been elected Treasurer of the Registrars Constituency. My
> understanding is that this arrangement was set up in the very beginning.
> I know that I mailed InterAccess' 2000 Registrars Constituency dues
> directly to ICANN, and I believe this was the preferred arrangement made
> by ICANN, the DNSO and Mike Palage at the time.
>
> However, I recognize that there may have been a severe misunderstanding
> on the part of everyone involved. At this point, I don't think we should
> try to assess blame or figure out who said what 2 years ago.
>
> The reality is that Diane Schroeder has regularly sent statements to
> the Registrars Constituency (first to Mike Palage, now to me), stating
> dues payments made by members of the Registrars Constituency. The
> RC thought the money was being held for the constituency, and evidently
> you (and perhaps others in the Names Council) thought the money was
> direcly for the DNSO.
>
> The registrars all paid off of invoices for their dues, and the invoices
> were either for $250 (for 2000) or $750 (for 2001). All payments made
> by the individual registrars were for $250, $750, or $1000 (a combined
> payment). So, it should be quite simple to identify these funds.
>
> Apparently, we need to determine a new arrangement, since the current
> situation has caused so much confusion. I would like to suggest that
> ICANN administer a second bank account for the Registrars Constituency,
> funded initially with the $9,736.14 currently belonging to the RC in
> the DNSO account. I'm more than happy to authorize any payments
> necessary to open & maintain this account.
>
> Again, if we need a teleconference to put this matter to rest, I'm
> personally willing to set it up & provide the teleconference bridge.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Bryan Evans
> Treasurer, Registrars Constituency
> Bryan.Evans@allegiancetelecom.com
> 312-496-4295
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cochetti, Roger [mailto:RCochetti@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:56 PM
> > To: 'Bryan.Evans@algx.com'
> > Cc: Glen De Saint Gery (E-mail); Diane Schroeder; Louis Touton (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Registrars Constituency
> >
> >
> > Bryan-
> >
> > Thank you for the explanation [I was hoping that there were some voluntary
> > donations to the DNSO included in the apparent overpayment...but I guess
> > not.]
> >
> > Unfortunately, accepting your explanation as correct, we have two
> > problems:
> > how can ICANN management know for certin why they received these funds and
> > the DNSO has established a precedent that it does not refund
> > overpayment of
> > dues by Constituencies, but instead credits the overpayment to that
> > Constituency's next year's dues [This was how we treated a prior
> > overpayment
> > by the Business Constituency when they requested a refund.]
> >
> > On the first point, I am aware of no arrangement under which ICANN
> > management collects or administers funds for the Registrar Constituency
> > (Diane may have further comment), or any other Constituency for
> > that matter.
> > The only arrangement that I know about is the agreement between
> > the DNSO and
> > ICANN management under which ICANN management collects funds and acts as a
> > custodian for the Names Council in the administration of DNSO funds.
> > Consequently, while I do not doubt your assertion that some part of the
> > payments ($9,736.14 according to you) that were sent by
> > registrars to ICANN
> > management [which acts as the custodian for the DNSO] were
> > actually intended
> > for the Registrars Constituency and not the DNSO; without explicit
> > clarification from the donors themselves, I don't know how ICANN
> > management
> > could treat the funds as other than DNSO funds.
> >
> > All of which leads me to suggest that, particularly in the absence of very
> > clear advance arrangements with both ICANN management and the DNSO, it is
> > probably not a good idea to have registrars send a check into ICANN
> > management that is intended to be used by both the DNSO and the Registrar
> > Constituency. These are two very different organizations and their funds
> > cannot be casually co-mingled, particularly when there is a custodian
> > administering them for the DNSO and not for the Registrar Constituency.
> >
> > In this sense, I think that you are actually asking ICANN management to
> > remit to you some part of the funds that they have received that on the
> > surface appear to be contributions by the Registrar Constituency to the
> > DNSO. Mostly, this is a matter between you and ICANN management. But,
> > since I have a responsibility to the DNSO and since I hold ICANN
> > management
> > accountable for the administration of DNSO funds, I am assuming that they
> > will require further clarification before releasing funds that on the
> > surface seem to have been intended for the DNSO.
> >
> > I know this sounds a bit complicated, but it is the first time I'd heard
> > that Registrars might be sending their dues to the Registrar
> > Constituency to
> > ICANN co-mingled with their payment of Constituency dues to the
> > DNSO, and if
> > I'd heard about it sooner, I would have advised against it as an overly
> > complex procedure.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > Roger J. Cochetti
> > Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> > VeriSign
> > (202) 973-6600
> > rcochetti@verisign.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bryan Evans [mailto:bevans@interaccess.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:33 AM
> > To: Cochetti, Roger
> > Cc: Glen De Saint Gery (E-mail); Diane Schroeder
> > Subject: RE: Registrars Constituency
> >
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > Actually, the RC didn't overpay its DNSO dues. I think there's
> > some confusion here, and I'd like to get it straightened out.
> >
> > The RC dues (payments by individual registrars to the constituency)
> > are paid directly to Diane Schroeder at ICANN, who has deposited
> > them in the DNSO account. In 1999 and 2000, the RC dues exactly
> > matched our share of the DNSO budget. However, beginning with 2001
> > (and continuing indefinitely), the RC members have elected to
> > increase our own budget above just our share of the DNSO budget.
> > Therefore, the RC dues will continue to exceed our DNSO contribution.
> >
> > At present, I have calculated a positive account balance for the
> > RC of $9,736.14 (which matches your figures exactly, by the way).
> > We did not intend to apply this as a credit to the RC's 2002 DNSO
> > dues. We actually have other expenses we need to pay out of this
> > sum. Of course, the RC will pay its full share of the DNSO budget
> > in due course in 2002.
> >
> > In the meantime, I need some way of accessing our excess monies to
> > pay the Registrars Constitunecy's own expenses. Perhaps the
> > existing situation needs to be changed, and the Registrars Constituency
> > given its own bank account. Alternatively, we just need to do some
> > extra bookkeeping to reconcile which funds belong in which bucket.
> > However, whatever solution we reach must allow the Registrars
> > Constituency unfettered access to its own balance.
> >
> > I'm willing to schedule a teleconference today between you, Diane
> > Schroeder, me, and anyone else involved. I can make myself available
> > for any time convenient for NorthAm (either coast) today, and alternate
> > time zones with a little warning. Please let me know your availability.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Bryan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cochetti, Roger [mailto:RCochetti@verisign.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:33 PM
> > > To: 'Bryan.Evans@algx.com'
> > > Cc: Glen De Saint Gery (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: Registrars Constituency
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Bryan-
> > >
> > > According to our records, the Registrars Constituency is not only
> > > fully paid
> > > up in its dues to the DNSO, it may have actually overpaid for
> > > calendar year
> > > 2001. The nominal breakdown is as follows, although we are
> > attempting to
> > > determine whether some of the 2001 overpayments were actually individual
> > > registrars who were making voluntary donations to the DNSO:
> > >
> > > YEAR DUES AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
> > REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY
> > >
> > > 1999 $5,000 $5,000
> > >
> > > 2000 $13,642.86 $13,642.86
> > >
> > > 2001 $15,371.00 $25,107.14
> > >
> > > Obviously, if the Constituency has overpaid and unless the Constituency
> > > decides to donate any surplus payments to the DNSO, any
> > overpayments will
> > > serve as a credit towards your 2002 DNSO dues.
> > >
> > > Let me know if I can help out in any other way,
> > >
> > > Roger Cochetti
> > > Chair
> > > Names Council Budget Committee
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Roger J. Cochetti
> > > Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> > > VeriSign
> > > (202) 973-6600
> > > rcochetti@verisign.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bryan Evans [mailto:bevans@interaccess.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:26 PM
> > > To: rcochetti@verisign.com
> > > Subject: Registrars Constituency
> > >
> > >
> > > Roger,
> > >
> > > I was elected Treasurer of the Registrars' Constituency. Prior to the
> > > ICANN meeting next month, I'm trying to complete an audit of the
> > > constituency's
> > > funds & put together next year's budget. Diane Schroeder told
> > me that you
> > > are
> > > the person to go to in order to obtain the figures that the
> > Names Council
> > > has
> > > for allocation of funds in the account to the various constituencies.
> > > Please
> > > let me know what the balance of the Registrars' Constituency's fund is.
> > >
> > > Also, I believe you need to authorize any disbursements from the DNSO
> > > account
> > > with ICANN. We should discuss how you and I will work together
> > to enable
> > > the
> > > Registrars' Constituency to cut checks on the Constituency's
> > account. I'd
> > > like to establish some procedures to protect the constituency,
> > > yet ensure a
> > > minimum burden on the Names Council and ICANN.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -Bryan
> > >
> > >
> > > Bryan Evans
> > > Director of Technology
> > > Allegiance Telecom, Hosting.com
> > > (formerly InterAccess)
> > > Bryan.Evans@algx.com
> > > 312-496-4295
> > >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [nc-budget] Intellectual Property Agreement
> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:32:31 -0500
> From: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>
> To: nc-budget@dnso.org, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> CC: Theresa Swinehart <swinehart@icann.org>
>
> To the NC Budget Committee,
>
> Following up on the committee's discussion of the intellectual property
> rights that DNSO/ICANN should receive in the materials AFNIC has
> generated in its performance of DNSO secretariat services, I have
> prepared the attached Intellectual Property Agreement. As you will
> note, the agreement is simple, having a body that is only two pages
> long. Its principal features are:
>
> 1. DNSO/ICANN would obtain a complete transfer of all of AFNIC's
> rights in the materials on the DNSO web site. (Exhibit A to the
> agreement is a listing of all URLs on the web site, but has been
> shortened in the attached document for your convenience in reviewing
> it.) With respect to materials prepared by AFNIC personnel and
> consultants, AFNIC would warrant that title to the intellectual property
> is being conveyed to DNSO/ICANN. With respect to other materials
> (mainly public comments), AFNIC would simply transfer whatever rights it
> has without a warranty of title. This transfer should permit DNSO/ICANN
> to continue to support its consensus-based policy-development activities
> in the domain-name area.
>
> 2. DNSO/ICANN would obtain a perpetual, no-further-cost license to
> all custom (i.e. not publicly available) software that AFNIC uses in
> carrying out the DNSO secretariat functions. This allows all future
> secretariats the benefit of this software should they choose to use it.
>
> 3. DNSO/ICANN would enter the agreement only with AFNIC, not with
> AFNIC's employees and consultants who have prepared the materials. It
> is AFNIC's responsibility to obtain the necessary rights from those
> employees and consultants.
>
> I believe that the above, simple agreement is a reasonable accommodation
> of the various views of the committee, as well as being fair to AFNIC.
> It fittingly provides that AFNIC, upon being compensated for its
> services, transfers to DNSO/ICANN the material that has been generated
> during those services as well as the software to continue performing
> those services.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Touton
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: AFNIC-to-ICANN-license-05nov01.pdf
> AFNIC-to-ICANN-license-05nov01.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: FW: Invoices for Glen de Saint Gery and AFNIC services to the DNS
> O in year 2001, November 2001
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:04:20 -0500
> From: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
> To: "'Nc-Budget (E-mail)'" <nc-budget@dnso.org>
>
> Attached you will find four invoices that we have received from Glen de
> Saint Gery and AFNIC for services that they have provided to the DNSO.
> Since they all fall within the Budget Committee's $5,000 spending authority,
> I suggest that we vote on them online. So please indicate to me your
> position on the DNSO paying each of the four attached invoices.
>
> Since they are all consistent with our commitments with Glen and AFNIC, I
> recommend that they be paid.
>
> As usual, if anyone objects to voting on these payments on-line, then we
> will vote by majority at our next regular Budget Committee meeting.
>
> Roger J. Cochetti
> Senior Vice-President & Chief Policy Officer
> VeriSign
> (202) 973-6600
> rcochetti@verisign.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:48 PM
> To: rcochetti@verisign.com
> Cc: elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr; Glen De Saint Gery;
> philip.sheppard@aim.be
> Subject: Invoices for Glen de Saint Gery and AFNIC services to the DNSO
> in year 2001, November 2001
>
> To: Roger Cochetti
> NC Budget Committee Chair,
>
> Paris, 29 November 2001
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> Pursuant to the Names Council agreement with Glen de Saint Gery and AFNIC,
> the joint services to the DNSO started to be provided in October 2001.
>
> Please find attached corresponding invoices for November 2001. The invoices
> from Glen de Saint Gery include telephone cost as well as travel expenses
> to Montevideo meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> Glen de Saint Gery
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> PJ:
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TC-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TR-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.AFNIC-to-ICANN-invoice.doc
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-invoice.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TC-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TC-invoice.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TR-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.GLEN-to-ICANN-TR-invoice.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: Y2001.Nov.AFNIC-to-ICANN-invoice.doc
> Y2001.Nov.AFNIC-to-ICANN-invoice.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|