ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-budget]


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

RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget


Ken,
The plan is for the ICANN budget to assume the responsibility. WE can't budget contingencies for the ICANN budget process. ICANN will meet its schedules. UNLESS there plans afoot from some  to undermine ICANN  by privately planning and negotiation to hold meetings elsewhere to create undermining efforts to ICANN... While I am aware of those endeavors, I both oppose them, and suggest that the responsible behavior of ICANN's constituencies is to make ICANN a success.
 
So, we don't need to burden the constituencies.
 
MC
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:47 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Philip Sheppard; nc-budget@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin Regs
Subject: Re: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

historically we have a track record of not being able to do anything "quickly", especially when it comes to budgeting & collecting $$
 
thats my principal reason why?
 
regards
 
ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

why have a reserve of that size? If the migration process is delayed, then we can do an interim.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:17 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Philip Sheppard; nc-budget@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin Regs
Subject: Re: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

i am concerned that we do not have enough of a contingency.. if there is any delay in the migration process to icann ver2 we could get caught short..
 
i would feel much more comfortable with a 20,000 reserve
 
ken stubbs
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

I support Philip's recommendations. It is clear that the constituencies will have difficulties in raising funding, and this is a much more achievable objective. Philip, thanks for doing this extra work!
 
Can other constituency reps comment?
 
Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:44 AM
To: nc-budget@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin Regs
Subject: [nc-budget] Proposed Jan-June 2003 NC budget

Budget Committee,
Time pressures meant that all voting members of the Budget Committee left before the end of the November 20 call, leaving Roger in the uncomfortable position of no one else to vote on the budget! Unfortunately, also the idea agreed to earlier in the call, to adjust the reserves in light of the end of the DNSO and a six month budget was not done. The Budget was left at something over USD 9000 per constituency for six months - ie 25% up on last year pro-rata. This seems unachievable, given our payments history.
 
Please see attached a revised proposal for your consideration. I have checked with Glen and got a new conservative figure for the reserves expected at the end of 2002 (USD 25,000). The assumption of the budget is:
-  Six months costs based on 2002 actuals provided by Glen.
- (As in 2002, Indicate but do not budget for task force telephone conferences - they continue to be sponsored until July 2003).
- Deduct the USD 25, 000 surplus cash in hand.
- ADD a cash-flow contingency of USD 10,000 to cover any late payment by up to 2 constituencies.
 
The net result is a call per constituency of USD 4950 per constituency.
I hope you can support this. The figure is conservative and I believe achievable to collect. Please indicate to Roger and the Budget Committee if you support this.
 
Philip
 


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