[council] RE: ICANN Budget for 2001-02

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Greetings:

It has come to our attention that ICANN made a call to business constituency
to join in the Budget Task Force. No such call has been received yet by the
ccTLD constituency.

We (ccTLD) wish to make clear that we expect full participation in this
exercise, with the same number of representatives from our constituency as
the maximum number of representatives coming from any other constituency.

We would like to avoid a repetition of the "Cairo Incident", where our
consensus-appointed representatives were turned away from the face-to-face
budget meeting.

We also feel that the level of representation available to various
constituencies is disproportionate to the level of (requested)
contributions, with many constituencies paying nothing at all.


>
> 21 January 2001
>
> ccTLD position on ICANN funding for the 2001-2002 fiscal year
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Whereas:
>    1. The ICANN President's Task Force on Funding main document is in
>       http://www.icann.org/tff/tff.htm
>    2. The initial TFF did prepare the budget for ICANN Fiscal Year
>       1999-2000 (July 1999 to June 2000), this budget was re-conducted
>       as it for ICANN Fiscal Year 2000-2001
>    3. The ICANN staff is currently requesting some of DNSO
>       Constituencies to delegate their representatives no latter than
>       24 January 2001 to the budget group that will be providing input
>       on the formulation of ICANN's budget for the 2001-2002 fiscal year,
> the ccTLD constituency urges ICANN to reconsider budget matter
> on more global and coherent level.
>
> In 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and for approximately 5 million USD per year
> the aggregate shares among classes of ICANN constituents are:
>    A. gTLD registrars and registry = 55%
>         - gTLD registrars = 50%
>         - gTLD registry = 5%
>    B. ccTLD registries = 35%
>    C. IP address registries = 10%
> It makes for 90% of funds being provided from the DNSO Constituencies.
> But, and the most important, this 90% is requested only from
> three (3) DNSO Constituencies: Registrars, gTLD, ccTLD, whilest
> the remaining four (4) do not fund ICANN at all: Business,
> ISPCP, IPC and NCDNH.
>
> The ccTLD Constituency does not believe that such a scheme is fair,
> and urges ICANN to explore new allocations, such as:
>    1. equilize the shares between Domain Names and IP Addresses,
>       and make it 50-50
>    2. equilize  the shares between Domain Names Constituencies,
>       by collecting funds from all seven groups:
>       Business, ISPCP, IPC, NCDNH, gTLD, ccTLD and Registrars
>
> The ccTLD Constituency intend to work closely with ICANN staff
> on all ccTLD-ICANN matters, including funding, over the scheduled
> February meetings in Hawaii and Geneva. This position is being
> issued to make well known in advance that the ccTLD share imposed on
> ccTLD is unfair and unrealistic. This is evidenced by the actual total
contributions of ccTLD to budget to date.

A more equitable distribution of the cost-recovery algorithm should insure a
more reliable revenue stream for essential ICANN operations.

>
> Peter de Blanc
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Oscar Robles Garay
> ccTLD NC Representatives
>
>