Re: [ga] October 1st, 2002

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 08:12 24/05/02, Gary Osbourne said:
>At 10:45 PM 23/05/02 +0200, jefsey wrote:
>>Now, do I miss. Where is the problem?
>
>The millions of dollars shown in the proposed budget as income. Using your 
>model, the vast majority of those funds would have to be carried over as a 
>surplus. A not for profit organization with a surplus many times larger 
>than expenditures might raise some eyebrows. If you add JDRP to your model 
>as the lawfirm of record, as well as a major creditor, the numbers come 
>close to being considered reasonable under the circumstances. Yer welcome. 
>:) -g

Understood. How crazy you are in the US as far as non-profit are concerned 
... so let pick a more civilized country were that kind of carry over is 
considered as sound management of a non-profit, or make it a ... Verisign 
foundation. They get the $M 12 with VRSN as a trustee so the money does not 
move, they sub-contract to VRSN at $4 the DN, vote Louis Touton as a Chair, 
takes over responsiblity in the root and sponsor the NCDNHC, to stop 
Milton's concerns and to look the good guy.

- VRSN has not to pay the money
- Louis' job is secured and he is now also a Member of the gTLD constituency
- as you say JDRP is their lawyer and can receive 1/4 of their yearly $M 
2.4 revenue even if the ICANN is closed.
- VRSN gets M$ 11 a year where they got nothing. (they probably pay a 10% 
rent on the Trust).
- the BoD squatters could be offered permanent advisory seat on the ".org 
foundation" and tour the red-cross places round the world on a discounted 
rate for NGOs (I suppose the .org foundation could ask for an NGO status).

Were is the flaw? Including for the registrants? Including for the 
employees? Including for the BoD?
jfc

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02