RE: [nc-budget] proposed budget

["Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>]

First, let me apologize for my absence from this list over the past week, which should have been an important time for the Budget Committee.  While traveling in Europe last week, I my laptop computer was stolen.  While nothing of value was on the hard drive, I effectively lost my connectivity until yesterday, at which time our office experienced a virus attack which led us to shut our e-mail service down until just recently.  So, I have been out of effective contact for several days.

 

Second, I will be circulating a draft report of the Budget Committee to the Names Council based on our most recent actions within the next day or so.

 

Third, I plan to schedule a meeting of the Budget Committee for the first week of January so that we can hear from ICANN management on their current views on the long-term legal structure of the DNSO budget and complete our work on the 2001 DNSO proposed budget.

  -----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:59 AM
To: DNSO budget
Subject: [nc-budget] proposed budget

Roger et al,

 

While we wait for Roger's proposal to go to the NC based on our discussions I have been thinking a little more about the principles involved behind the recommendation we agreed to.

 

We agreed to a revised set of estimated costs.  OK

We agreed to exclude web casting but include everything else including outreach travel of $9000 (in addition to travel to meetings). OK (sort of)

 

We then agreed to make some assumptions in order to calculate the proposed constituency contribution:

1. $120,000 is raised by voluntary contributions - OK

2. We have actual costs to date of $62,100 (Berkman centre web cast  + AFNIC sec charge) - OK

3. The subs received to date (1999 +2000 = $98,589) are all we will get. ???

(If all 1999 + 2000 are paid we would receive $130,500).

 

I am not comfortable with a principle that we say to constituencies here is the 2001 fee call which assumes that some of you did not (and will not?) pay the 1999 or 2000 fees.  This is not a good principle. Nor is it conservative budgeting. If we know there are defaulters in 2000, why assume they will pay in 2001 ?  I would prefer to assume constituencies will pay what they agreed to pay before we ask them for more.

 

Comments ?

 

(Also Roger, we need as a budget committee to agree to an explicit proposal following the call we can recommend anything to the NC - we haven't seen this yet).

 

Philip.