RE: [nc-corp] GNSO budget issues beyond 1 July 2003

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com>]

I support Roger's description under 3) below related to whom the funds
belong; secondly, I also believe he is right about the "principle" agreed
to by council. 

And, am looking forward to scheduling. I am unable to participate
from 6/15-20, due to ITU attendance. Roger, will you be at ICANN? 
If not, perhaps we can schedule a call shortly thereafter? If so, 
perhaps an early breakfast meeting one day?

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger J. Cochetti [mailto:roger@cochetti.us]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:58 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: roger@cochetti.us; nc-corp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-corp] GNSO budget issues beyond 1 July 2003


Thanks Bruce.  

By copy of this note to Glen, I am asking her to schedule a 
meeting of the Budget Committee to address the issues that 
you have raised.

Two questions and one comment:

1) Is there any date by which you would like the Committee's 
recommendations?; and

2) Is there some further context for your question about 
writing off Constituency debts for dues?  Whether the debts 
remain on the GNSO's books or not has little practical 
impact. Under widespread accounting practices, most or all of 
these assets would have been written off as uncollectable 
long ago, so their value as "assets of the GNSO" is pretty 
doubtful.  But the GNSO is not a public corporation and the 
old DNSO Budget Committee established a principal that no 
Constituency should officially subsidize other Constituencies-
which is what led to the existing DNSO/GNSO practice of not 
ever forgiving unpaid dues.  So is there some further 
context?

3)There should be no confusion, as far as I am concerned, 
that the GNSO funds are managed by ICANN management in trust 
for the GNSO and they are not in any way ICANN funds per se.  
Thus, there is no easy way that any unspent GNSO funds could 
be converted into ICANN funds.  They were contributed by 
DNSO/GNSO Constituencies for the express purpose of operating 
the GNSO with the funds being under the control of the GNSO; 
and that is what they should be used for.  These funds could 
be returned to the Constituencies or the Constituencies could 
be asked to accept a change to the terms of their use, but 
absent something like these actions, there was never any 
doubt that any unused funds would remain at the disposal of 
the GNSO.  Whether ICANN management wishes to continue to 
administer the GNSO funds on behalf of the GNSO, however, is 
obviously their decision.

Roger

Roger Cochetti
Chair
GNSO Budget Committee     

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:01:10 +1000
>From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>  
>Subject: [nc-corp] GNSO budget issues beyond 1 July 2003  
>To: <roger@cochetti.us>
>Cc: <nc-corp@dnso.org>
>
>To: Roger Cochetti, Chair of GNSO Budget committee
>From: Bruce Tonkiin, Chair GNSO Council
>
>Hello Roger, 
>
>At the GNSO Council meeting on 5 June 2003, there was a 
discussion of
>the GNSO budget situation beyond 1 July 2003.
>
>There are two issues:
>(1) There is outstanding debt from constituencies that have 
not paid
>past dues to the GNSO
>(2) There will most likely be unspent funds as of 30 June 
2003
>
>With regard to (1), it may be appropriate for the GNSO 
Council to write
>off the debts on the balance sheet.
>
>With regard to (2) it apears that outstanding funds will not
>automatically be returned directly to ICANN, and they will 
remain at the
>disposal of the GNSO Council (e.g for direct expenses of 
meeting rooms
>etc).  
>It maybe appropriate to form a budget for 1 July 2003 to 30 
June 2004,
>or alternatively the funds could be kept in reserve for the 
GNSO Council
>should a need arise.
>
>I seek a recommendation from the budget committee for a 
council meeting
>in July on how to proceed on the above two points.  It might 
be
>appropriate for the budget committee to meet in Montreal to 
discuss.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce
Roger J. Cochetti
TEL 301-654-2923
FAX 301-654-7262
roger@cochetti.us