[ga] Re: GA/DNSO Funding

[Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>]

Danny -

The Budget Group is only one part of the ICANN budget process.  That 
process has been and continues to be open to anyone or any 
organization for participation and contribution.  In the first 
quarter of the calendar year, a Preliminary budget is posted by the 
staff for community review and comment, both electronic and at the 
first quarterly public forum.  Then a proposed budget is posted in 
the second quarter for further review and comment prior to adoption 
by the Board in June.  A public comment website forum is maintained. 
See Appendix B of the Proposed Budget document for the specific 
calendar that was followed this year.

http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm

Stuart Lynn tells me that he intends to accelerate the budget 
development process this coming year, with initial opportunities for 
participation and contribution to begin immediately after the annual 
meeting in Marina del Rey in November.

- Mike


At 16:57 -0400 8/27/01, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Chuck,
>
>What we are looking for is a voice in the process.   The General Assembly (by
>way of a motion passed by over 80% of the membership) has already expressed
>its interest in participating in the Budget process.  At this time, the
>Budget Advisory Committee still consists of only representatives from the
>four constituencies that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding: the Registrars,
>gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries, and RIR constituencies (as per the recent
>letter of Stuart Lynn to the registrars: 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01048.html ).
>
>Just because these organizations collect the funds that are submitted to
>ICANN does not justify their participation in the budgetary process to the
>exclusion of the rest of the ICANN community. 
>
>This is like saying that because the IRS is the instrument that collects
>funds from taxpayers, only the IRS should have a say in how much money is
>collected or how such funds should be spent. 
>
>What is clear to me is that as new gTLDs are added to the mix, resulting in
>millions of new domain registrations, the average unit amount paid by each
>gTLD registrar (18 cents) goes down accordingly during these current and
>upcoming fiscal quarters. 
>
>Simply maintaining a static rate per registration would result in additional
>funds to ICANN which could be put to use to provide the services we now lack.
>   No one is seeking to hurt either the registrars or registries, but rather
>we seek to develop an appropriate funding vehicle to sustain the activities
>of the DNSO.  Our input into the Budgetary process might result in
>recommendations that could support this effort.  If we continue to be shut
>out of the advisory process, then we will have to rely on the good will of
>the registries and registrars to look after our best interests.  
>
>That would not be an ideal approach.
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


-- 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html