I agree with Phillip that the general
feeling at the NC was satisfaction with the proposed budget (in broad
terms) but concern over arrangements for constituency subscriptions.
. My reading of that meeting was that many people abstained
because the issues relating to constituency fees were not sufficiently
understood or discussed.
I don't think we should regard this as a
major set back - and I would like to recognize the great job Roger has
done as Chair of the Budget Committee. But, it seems, we have just
a little way further to go.
I
don't understand the options Phillip has suggested below, but it
is pretty clear that we need to address the issue of subsidising
constituencies which genuinely have something unique to contribute
to the ICANN process but have real funding difficulties. One
option I would like to suggest is roughly as
follows:
1. All constituencies should be billed
for the same amount but should also be given the right to
'show cause' why they should receive a fee subsidy.
2. Constituencies applying for a fee
subsidy should be required to identify the unique nature of their
contribution to the ICANN/DNSO process, and describe what measures they
have taken to raise the funds to cover the fees levied on all
constituencies.
3. Such applications should be
considered by the NC on a case by case basis.
4. If the NC is satisfied that the
constituency is making a valuable contribution to the ICANN/DNSO process
and has made all reasonable attempts to raise the necessary funds, then
the NC should formally pass a motion agreeing to reduce the fee for that
constituency for a specified period and reduce the budget
contingency allocation by a corresponding amount.
5. The NC should formally advise both the
ICANN Board and the DNSO constituencies of its decision.
An approach of this kind would ensure the
fee subsidies for constituencies can be provided but only under
exceptional circumstances and in accordance with open and
transparent processes.
While this may not be a perfect solution
(is there any such thing?), it may provide a way of accomodating the
different concerns expressed by the NC representatives of the different
constituencies.
What do others think?
erica
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001
2:53 PM
Subject: [nc-budget] NC meeting
Feb 8
Roger et al,
1. Now that I am NC chair I would like to
follow the example of Ken who remained an observer to the budget
committee but not an active participant. As such I will intercede
from time to time but exempt myself from Budget committee votes,
proposals etc.
2. As you know the NC rejected
(by abstentions) the budget committee proposal on the 2001 subs and
will be revisiting the item on Feb 8.
"Item1: Budget Committee - revisiting the recommendation on 2001
budget and
constituency contributions
(Roger Cochetti) - 30
mins"
The NC seemed to have no problem with the proposed
2001 budget but indicated concern on the question of
constituency subs.
Could I ask the budget committee to prepare three
options for the NC to discuss.
Option 1: the previous proposal (= 2001 budget less
voluntary shared by 7)
Option 2: a new proposal (=2001 budget less
voluntary less surplus of subs 1999 and 2000 RECEIVED as at
31 Jan 2001 shared by 7).
Option 3: a new proposal (=2001 budget less
voluntary less surplus of subs 1999 and 2000 REQUESTED shared by
7).
Please indicate the advantages/disadvantages of each
option.
Philip.
Philip Sheppard
AIM - European Brands Association
9 av. des Gaulois B-1040 Brussels
Tel +322 736 0305
Fax +322 734
6702