RE: [nc-budget] NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE DRAFT REPORT TO NA MES COUNCIL

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

All,

Unfortunatelly my discussions with Louis for scribe's help for an
interim period and offered by ICANN (pro-bono) did not get any chance
to be explained clairly to the NC, as I intended to do it.
I plan to do it on the call tomorrow.

This issue is far from being easy, and needs to be discussed by the NC.

I believe some difficulties arise also from the fact that we did not wrote
results from Erica's group on the telecon held 29 Sep (Erica, Chuck, 
Dany, Peter and myself). I will do it with the help from attendees.

In the meantime I am for dropping the two items.

Elisabeth



> From owner-nc-budget@dnso.org Wed Oct 18 13:52 MET 2000
> Message-ID: <3309B573228FD411AF4500D0B784A14838362B@netsol-nic-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
> From: "Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>
> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>,
>         "Cochetti, Roger"
> 	 <rogerc@netsol.com>,
>         "'Elisabeth Porteneuve'"
> 	 <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>,
>         nc-budget@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-budget] NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE DRAFT REPORT TO NA
> 	MES COUNCIL
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:48:36 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> Thanks for the quick comment Phillip.
> 
> I evidently recall a more detailed discussion than you on how the funds in
> the ICANN administered account should be allocated (maybe a reason why we
> could use a recording secretary).  Anyway, the purpose of these two items
> was less to evaluate every facet of the duties of a recording secretary or
> an outside Web service vendor than to allocate an up-to amount that is
> authorized to be spent on them.  Typically, that type of not to exceed
> allocation requires a lot less detail than for example an outright contract
> amount might.
> 
> Anyway, if others share your concern, I have no difficulty withdrawing these
> items and we can take them up at a near term Budget Committee meeting in a
> more comprehensive way.  I suspect, however, that the Council will be asked
> to deal with an allocation for a recording secretary at its next meeting; so
> it would be nice to have some Budget Committee input into that discussion. 
> 
> Recommending allocations from the existing DNSO budget is an important part
> of our charter so we'll need to get on with it or the Council will simply
> act without our recommendations.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:52 AM
> To: Cochetti, Roger; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; nc-budget@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-budget] NAMES COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE DRAFT REPORT TO
> NAMES COUNCIL
> 
> 
> Roger,
> your bullets points are fine except the last two items. Both these go beyond
> what we agreed or even recommended during the Budget Committee
> teleconference and I cannot support them at this stage. I propose there
> deletion.
> 
> Recording secretary
> The principle of a recording secretary needs to be discussed.
> The objective has not been made explicit.
> The added value has not been made explicit.
> The implications for the understandability and communication value of NC
> meeting summaries when written by a legally oriented author has not been
> discussed.
> The implications of accountability/ownership of an NC summary as a result of
> having two individuals (a DNSO secretary and a recording secretary) have not
> been discussed.
> 
> Budget for web services
> I have no problem with the idea of trying to put a ceiling on costs but an
> arbitrary recommendation on one item seems premature and potentially
> duplication of the budget presented by afnic some months ago. If we are to
> make a budget recommendation lets do so based on the whole budget having
> resolved the two funds issue. It is too piecemeal otherwise.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
>