[council] ICANN budget request fror DNSO secrertariat support

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Linda,
further to the e-mail below, Louis Touton has explained a little more about the ICANN budget process. Apparently your committee (ICANN Finance Committee) has responsibility for "advising the President as to the preparation of that budget, reviewing it, and making recommendations to the Board on it" and the Budget Advisory Group's advice is also a part of this process. There is a board recommendation outstanding for adoption later in June.

 

So perhaps my question needs re-phrasing.

1. Does the ICANN Finance Group make any recommendation subsequent to the Advisory Group's advice?

2. If yes what recommendation do you have with regard to the rejection of the CEOs recommendation for staff support for the DNSO?

3. If no (and this is a more general ICANN reform question) in your opinion as chair is the advice of the advisory group a de facto decision (as resistance by the Board is unlikely to be strong)? And is this appropriate financial expediency/control that is in the best interests of ICANN?

 

Philip

 

 

Philip Sheppard

NC Chair

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Sheppard
To:
Cc: Sent: 10 June 2002 17:27
Subject: ICANN budget request fror DNSO secrertariat support


Linda,
I am writing to you as the chair of the ICANN finance committee.
Further to the DNSO resolution copied below, I understand that the ICANN recommendation within the new ICANN budget for USD170,000 for DNSO staff support has been rejected on the basis of advice received from the Budget Advisory Group. I understand that this group comprises members of various organisations who are at present the conduit for registrants fees and other funding sources reaching ICANN.

On behalf of the Names Council and the DNSO could you share the committee's reasoning for rejection ?

Philip Sheppard
Names Council chair
--------------------------------
Resolution of the Names Council December 13, 2001
Whereas ICANN has invited the Names Council to comment on its 2002-2003 budget,
Whereas,
1. The request below follows the earlier NC resolution requesting ICANN funding of 11 April 2001.
2. The request below follows a resolution of the General Assembly of May 28, 2001:
"The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby petitions the ICANN Board to fund the DNSO and all other ICANN Supporting Organizations with funding adequate for the operation and administration of such Supporting Organizations (all monies donated to be allocated and disbursed from ICANN central accounts). The General Assembly of the DNSO further asks for formal inclusion in the overall ICANN Budgetary process."
3. There is support in the At-Large SC 2001 report for funding of the SOs.
4. Constituencies waste considerable time on fund raising activities, taking away time from DNSO policy advise to the Board.
5. Fees cause division in the DNSO (eg the non comm constituency is on a time line to have its votes withdrawn) and this division is counterproductive to achieving policy consensus.
6. The DNSO is a central part of the ICANN process and the most political/ media exposed of the SOs.
7. The ICANN secretariat is about to issue contracts for the provision of professional DNSO secretariat support, so this service is already under ICANN staff control.


The Names Council therefore resolves to request that ICANN allocate a sum of USD 170,000 in its 2002-2003 budget and an equivalent sum annually thereafter for the provision of secretariat services to the DNSO.