RE: [nc-budget] 2003 GNSO BUDGET
I support the proposal characterized as teh Philip Sheppard proposal. I continue to see no need to collect funds beyond those that are necessary to support teh policy functions.
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:19 AM
To: Cochetti, Roger; DNSO Budget Committee (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [nc-budget] 2003 GNSO BUDGET
I support the Philip Shepard proposal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
To: "DNSO Budget Committee (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: [nc-budget] 2003 GNSO BUDGET
> Attached you will find several documents that relate to the Generic Names
> Supporting Organization budget for the period December 2002 through June
> 2003. The situation is a bit more complicated than we had understood
> our last meeting, so let me clarify a few points.
> First, a few administrative matters:
> Up until now, we have been assuming that the DNSO and its Names Council
> would continue to operate in a manner comparable to their operations
> 2002 through June 30, 2003, at which time the DNSO would be replaced with
> the new GNSO. Consequently, we have made no changes to the 2002 DNSO
> and been planning for a six month DNSO budget for 2003.
> As I understand the current transition plan that will be considered by the
> ICANN Board this weekend, the DNSO and its Names Council will cease to
> upon ICANN Board approval of the proposed transition plan and they will be
> immediately succeeded by the GNSO and its Names Council. This means that
> need to convert the budget for the DNSO for the remaining weeks of 2002
> the budget for the GNSO for this period.
> More important, contrary to the assumptions that we have made, the budget
> that we are planning for the period January through June 2003 is for the
> GNSO and not for the DNSO.
> Second, on the current financial condition of the DNSO, attached you will
> find two spread sheets that summarize the DNSO's financial condition as of
> The first spreadsheet is the current DNSO budget statement for 2002.
> it does not reflect all of the expenses that we have incurred to date, it
> does show that we have spent about $71,000 of out total budget of $98,000
> for this year.
> The second spreadsheet is the overall cash flow statement for the DNSO.
> shows that for 2002 of the seven DNSO Constituencies, four have fully paid
> their dues (Business, gTLD, IP and Registrars); two have made some payment
> (ccTLDs have paid $2,000 and Non Commercial has paid $100); and one has
> no payments (ISPs.) It also shows that the current cash balance of the
> is around $52,000 -- which does not take into account up to around $30,000
> in additional expenses that have been and will be o might be incurred
> November and December of 2002.
> Third, on the GNSO budget for the first six months of 2003, we currently
> have two proposals before us and I propose that we put them to a Committee
> The first is the budget that was approved at the last Budget Committee
> meeting (labeled "Budget Committee" below.) It shows a total GNSO expense
> budget for January-June 2003 of $54,450.
> The second is the budget that was proposed by Philip Shephard (labeled
> PROPOSED 2003 DNS..." below.) It shows a total GNSO expense budget for
> January-June 2003 of $54,700. The principal differences between the first
> and second proposals, as I understand them, is that Philip would delete
> $9,750 for 13 task force and committee teleconferences and add a $10,000
> contingency fund. More important, from the perspective of dues, Philip
> would use $25,000 of the DNSO's current cash balance to finance GNSO
> operations during 2003, thereby leaving an amount that would need to be
> raised from dues for this period of $19,700.
> So, in my view, the major difference between the original Committee plan
> Philip's proposal is in whether the GNSO would retain a sizeable cash
> balance at the end of June, 2003 at the cost of increased dues; or
> the GNSO cash balance would be used to fund GNSO operations during
> January-June 2003, thereby reducing dues and leaving a small cash balance.
> I have inquired with ICANN management as to whether they believe that the
> reduced cash balance implied in Philip's plan would bring the GNSO's cash
> balance below the minimal level of cash on hand that ICANN management has
> required of the DNSO in order to administer the DNSO's funds. They have
> indicated that Philip's proposal would bring the GNSO below the minimal
> balance that has been required of the DNSO.
> I therefore ask that you indicate whether you support
> The original committee proposal; or
> The Philip Shephard proposal.
> For myself, I believe that the original Committee proposal, which implied
> that a significant GNSO cash balance be retained, is prudent for the same
> reasons that I have supported a DNSO cash balance in the past. The GNSO
> obligations to people who depend on its timely ability to cover them and
> faces an uncertain income from Constituencies. If many, most or all
> Constituencies pay their, admittedly higher, dues in early 2003, then the
> GNSO will have retained a substantial unnecessary cash balance -- which
> be used for constructive purposes in the future. If, on the other hand,
> many, most or all of the DNSO Constituencies fail to pay their dues before
> June, 2003, then the cash balance will permit the GNSO to avoid either
> closing down functions or failing to pay creditors or emergency calls for
> additional contributions.
> Regardless, please indicate whether you support the original committee or
> the Philip Shepard proposals so we can take a Committee proposal to the
> Names Council.
> Roger Cochetti
> Names Council Budget Committee