ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Handling of DNSO Funds


Thank you Louis,

Your comments provide much needed reassurance that we can continue to work
together co-operatively to resolve issues relation to the financial
administration of DNSO funds.

erica

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Louis Touton
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:46 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Cc: Karl Auerbach
Subject: [council] Handling of DNSO Funds


To the Names Council:

I suggest you accept Karl's advice as the views of one member of the
19-member ICANN Board, not as legal advice endorsed by ICANN.  Karl has
not been retained by ICANN to offer such advice.

At its Melbourne meeting, the Board adopted the following resolution:

   Whereas, the Audit Committee has reviewed and reported to the Board
   on the practices by which ICANN receives, handles, and disburses
   funds contributed to the support of the Domain Name Supporting
   Organization;

   It is therefore

   RESOLVED [01.36] that the President is authorized, until further
   action by the Board, to maintain a separate bank account for holding
   funds contributed to the support of the Domain Name Supporting
   Organization, to place in that account funds contributed for that
   purpose, and to make disbursements from that account upon
   authorization of the Names Council or its designee.

Except for requests that would violate law or endanger ICANN's
tax-exempt status, ICANN management intends to act under the above
authorization.

Best regards,

Louis Touton






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Re: [announce] NCtelecon 9 May 2001, minutes
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 00:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>


> Agenda item 5: Budget Committee recommendation
>
>      Decision D2: R. Cochetti moved the following resolution, seconded by
P.
>      de Blanc:
>
>           The Council authorizes the Budget Committee to:
>
>           (1) conclude a memorandum of understanding with ICANN management
>           on behalf of the DNSO, under which ICANN management will serve
as
>           a custodian for the funds raised by voluntary donations to the
>           DNSO; In such a custodial role, ICANN management will deposit
and
>           disburse funds as directed by the Council or its Budget
Committee,
>           unless ICANN management reports to both that doing so would in
>           ICANN management's view either be illegal or jeopardize ICANN's
>           own tax status; and

As a member of the Board of Directors I find this to be somewhat
inadequate.  We can not forget that the board retains the ultimate
discretion over these funds.  Thus any suggestion as to disbursement is
just that, merely a suggestion, it can have no mandatory effect.  Of
course, it is likely that such requests will be accepted as a matter of
course.  But it is important to not lose sight of the fact that the DNSO
is part of legal entity known as ICANN, the ultimate direction of which,
financial and otherwise, including all of its sub-elements, including
the DNSO, is vested in the Board of Directors.

I understand that efforts are underway to investigate creating a
distinct entity for these funds.  I encourage and support that effort.
But as long as the DNSO is legally part of ICANN everything that it does
and everything that it has are ultimately the responsibility of the
Board
of Directors of ICANN.

In the meantime, I see no reason to disrupt or change the way the DNSO's
funds are handled or any reason to not give the DNSO the lead in making
recommendations (ones that will, without doubt, carry significant
persuasive force and which will probably be disregarded only in the most
compelling of circumstances) over those funds.  We, of course, ought to
make sure that the DNSO funds are properly and clearly identified on
ICANN's ledgers and financial reports.  There is no "us vs them" here;
rather we are all part of one single corporate entity.

		--karl--



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>