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