Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

ICANN is a California non-profit corp.  Does it also have IRS 501c? (i.e.
501c3 or 501c6) status?

I question how a non-profit can reimburse or otherwise pay the bills
of a foreign government without jeopardizing their non-profit status
(and/or their IRS 501c? status, if any).

Is this type of disbursement activity specifically authorized by the
current bylaws of the corporation?

Mr. Sims is "right on" about the angst over this being interesting.
The rest of the narrative, however, reminds me of Watergate.

With respect to whom has forgotten what, we only need to look to the
MoU and the White Paper and count the number of Directors who have
been elected by the At Large and, then, look to the "Blueprint for
Reform" to see how many will be elected by the At Large in the future.

Reform is not a pardon or absolution for breaking the rules - it is
but a weak excuse.



Wednesday, August 14, 2002, 7:57:05 AM, Joe Sims <jsims@JonesDay.com> wrote:
JS> The angst over this is interesting, and it shows how some have forgotten
JS> the basic idea here.  The reason for ICANN was to create an organization
JS> that could avoid the bureaucratic problems of treaty organizations.  What
JS> we have here is a great example of the difference between governmental
JS> bodies and more flexible bodies.  Up to now, Australia has been the
JS> volunteer funding source for the GAC Chair and Secretariat, and no GAC
JS> members had to worry about funding other than to travel to meeting.    Now
JS> that source has gone away (Australia reasonably concluding it had carried
JS> more than its fair share of the load), and the GAC representatives have to
JS> figure out, for the first time, how to fund the Chair and Secretariat.  It
JS> is hardly surprising that, being governments, this takes some time.  Now,
JS> someone has to come up with a plan (the GAC has created a committee to do
JS> this), and then the GAC reps go back to their governments, and get whatever
JS> approval is necessary.  This also takes some time.  At this stage in the
JS> ICANN reform process, unfortunately, we don't have any time; we are in the
JS> middle of the process, and it will end in October.  So if there is going to
JS> be any GAC activity between now and Shanghai, someone has to pay for it.
JS> Of course governments have the money, but it takes time to go through their
JS> processes.  The ability of ICANN to make a quick decision to deal with an
JS> immediate issue is a great example of the advantages of a private sector
JS> body over a governmental body -- or in other words, the justification for a
JS> body like ICANN.

JS> The difference between the DNSO request and this is that the former was
JS> intended to be permanent funding, while this is a short-term, one time
JS> issue.  The general issue of funding for ICANN units is part of the reform
JS> process, and the Blueprint assumes that the ICANN constituent units will be
JS> staffed through ICANN funding.  So these are apples and oranges.



JS> Joe Sims




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




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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