<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: ICANN Budget for 2001-02
Dear Mike,
We have circulated the call for nominations as widely as possible
among the various ccTLD organizations, of which the DNSO ccTLD
constituency is an important one.
...
I do not recall getting any information about the budget group,
neither any call for nomination from ICANN, and I might have forget.
Could you be more precise and quote messages posted from ICANN to the
ccTLD group ? It may happen than we have internal problems with
information not being distributed within the ccTLD various
organizations, and it would help us to understand where and why,
and hopefully correct it.
We would appreciate your quick response re nominations since the
first agenda materials will be distributed to the budget group this
coming Friday the 25th, and the first teleconference will be held
next Monday the 29th.
...
Noted. We would appreciate to have this material distributed
prior to Hawaii meeting on the 1st February.
Kind regards,
Elisabeth
--Original Message--
From owner-council@dnso.org Mon Jan 22 20:41 MET 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: mmr@192.0.34.50
Message-Id: <a04330100b6922e283487@[129.37.100.222]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:40:24 -1000
To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
From: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
Subject: [council] RE: ICANN Budget for 2001-02
Cc: <touton@icann.org>, schroeder@icann.org, kanchana@thnic.net,
council@dnso.org
Peter - sorry for any confusion here. We did NOT contact the
business constituency.
We did contact the accredited registrars through their constituency
mailing list as a matter of convenience since this readily
accomplishes the aim of getting the call for nominations out to this
group which is specifically represented on the budget group according
to the recommendations of the funding task force.
We have circulated the call for nominations as widely as possible
among the various ccTLD organizations, of which the DNSO ccTLD
constituency is an important one.
You may recall that the allocation of members of the budget group
includes three for the ccTLD organizations, which is equal to the
number for the .com/net/org registrars. There was some prior
discussion about the fact that the accredited registrars make a
substantially larger financial contribution to ICANN than do the
cc's, however, the size and diversity of the cc group tends to
balance these two factors and I believe that the various subgroups
from whom the budget group membership are chosen are comfortable with
the current lineup. That can be the subject of further discussion
among the members of the budget group if you wish.
We too would like to avoid a Cairo situation again and look forward
to your participation.
On the second part of your note, I think it is important to
distinguish between the DNSO as a support organization to assist
ICANN in policy development, as spelled out in the Bylaws, and the
responsibilities of domain name and address registries/registrars to
provide financial support for ICANN as recommended by the White Paper
and subsequently confirmed by the funding task force. Some
organizations and individuals are involved in both aspects of ICANN's
activities, but they are not the same.
On the more general issue of sources of funding for ICANN, it is the
Board's desire that the budget group review this topic annually, and
I expect that once the group is formed, its agenda will indeed do
that. In addition, the recently formed Finance Committee of the
Board will be looking at long range financial issues, including
appropriate sources of support, during the coming year.
We would appreciate your quick response re nominations since the
first agenda materials will be distributed to the budget group this
coming Friday the 25th, and the first teleconference will be held
next Monday the 29th.
We're also looking forward to meeting with the Asia Pacific ccTLD
managers in Honolulu next Thursday, the 1st.
- Mike
At 12:01 -0400 1/22/01, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>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
>>
>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|