<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Budget Input
This message while totally sensible in the real world causes some major
problems in the not so real world of the 501c3 US tax status and the
California non-profit corporation concepts.
Payment for services is a strange beast that must only be used sparingly by
ICANN.
At this point this type of revenue generation appears to be all that is left
to ICANN. I have been told that this disqualifies ICANN from the status it
requires from the DoC, and that ICANN is in default with the IRS.
I personally could not find an exemption/exception.
I further understand that the BoD of ICANN (that is without a membership) is
personally responsible for tax consequences. If they run like a private
corporation then that is what it is de facto. A board with out
stockholders/membership/stakeholders and without elections is not a board no
matter how fancy you want to word it.
No Peter, I would rethink giving any money to aid and abet a fraud.
e
> On 23 Dec 2002 at 17:20, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>
>> I am writing to seek any thoughts, comments, suggestions that the
>> ccTLD constituency might have regarding the ICANN 2003-2004 budget
>> that commences July 1, 2003. This request is distinct from my separate
>> request to you for ccTLD nominations to the Budget Advisory Group.
>>
> Stuart,
> this is a personal response, as the ccTLD adcom has yet to meet in the
> New Year, and the pressure of work prevented the last call, scheduled
> during the countdown to summer vacations, Xmas et al.
>
> First, I think it is important to note that there is no longer a cctld
> constituency.The ccTLDs in Shanghai completed the long- promised
> withdrawal from it, leaving the legal structure an unpopulated husk.
>
> There is no such constituency in the reformed GNSO.
>
> The ctlds expect there to be place for them in the reformed ICANN,
> namely a ccSO, but it is not clear yet that the present reform process
> is going to result in a structure which will be so attractive to
> cctlds that they will join up in any significant numbers.
>
> The primary obstacle remains likely to be any further attempts by ICANN
> to institute new, top down control over the "sovereign" cctlds through
> the PDP and Contracts, fuelled by the recollection of misuses by
> ICANN of its stewardship of the IANA function.
>
> I am hopeful that an arrangement will be reached on these issues, and
> turn to specific issues of the Budget.
>
> It would be helpful to have your official and formal reaction to the
> cctlds' Bucharest statement on this matter : to date I am not aware of
> any response from you.
>
> The statement is at www.wwtld.org/documents, and reads in part:
>
> "7 The ccTLDs are committed to funding those overheads of the
> corporation directly related
> to ccTLD activities, for example the IANA services, and in addition
> are
> willing to make a
> fair contribution to ICANN for its more general overheads. While
> the
> level of funding is
> not a requisite part of the re-structuring debate, we make the
> following
> points:
>
> 7.1 The ccTLDs are resolved that there should be no cross-subsidy
> of
> non-ccTLD-related
> expenditure by ccTLD income as we have already engaged in time-
> consuming and costly
> local policy processes.
>
> 7.2 When the Budget is approved by the ccSO, the ccTLDs will
> guarantee funding the
> contribution agreed.
>
> 7.3 For the ccSO to approve those portions of the budget relating
> to
> ccTLD matters, it will
> require that its delegates or representatives take part in the
> Budget
> process and are able to
> review details of expenditure (which include the allocation and the
>
> basis of the allocation
> of the global ccTLD contribution) early in the budget process. That
>
> information is,
> currently, not provided.
>
> 7.4 The ccSO will determine the allocation of the global
> contribution
> among its members."
>
>
> If you would begin by confirming that detailed information on the IANA
> costs break down will be made available to any representatives of the
> ccTLDs, (in confidence, if appropriate) that should encourage the
> appointment of cctld representatives to the budget process.
>
> I would also appreciate your confirmation that the official ICANN
> position on funding by the cctlds is still that it will be the
> individual contract each cctld has with ICANN which will create an
> obligation binding the cctld to fund ICANN, with the amount in any
> given year to be approved by a policy process in the ccSO.
>
> I think it is important to be able to assure ccTLDs that the sum which
> each ccTLD will in future be obligated to pay to ICANN will be set by
> an open and transparent process, operated within the ccSO, and not
> subject to the control of ICANN or other entities outside the ccSO.
>
> That way, there is both a further reason to encourage their
> participation in that ICANN entity, and an answer to those who
> challenge the contracts on the basis that they create un-enforceable
> (void for uncertainty) or unfair open-ended obligations.
>
> Your views on the other points will also be appreciated.
>
> My best regards for 2003
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
>
>> We are now beginning the budget process. The key milestones in the
>> process are the posting for public comment of the Preliminary Budget
>> around the middle of February, 2003 and of the Proposed Budget for
>> public comment around the middle of May, 2003. The board adopts the
>> actual Final Budget at its meeting at the end of June.
>>
>> In the preparation of the Preliminary and Proposed Budgets, I am
>> advised by the Finance Committee, a committee of the ICANN Board, and
>> by the Budget Advisory Group, a committee appointed by me composed of
>> nominees recommended by the four functions of ICANN that provide the
>> bulk of our funding (the Registrars and Registries Constituencies, the
>> ccTLD Constituency, and the RIRs).
>>
>> To assist me and these Committees in the formation of the Preliminary
>> Budget, your input would be very valuable. To help you in this regard,
>> I would point you to the approved Final Budget for the current fiscal
>> year, 2002-2003: see
>> http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy02-03-28jun02.htm.
>>
>> The main focus of changes for 2003-2004 will be:
>>
>> (a) Changes to the 2003-2004 that relate to inflation and other known
>> adjustments. (b) Changes attributable to what is required to
>> accomplish what is mandated by the reform steps approved by the Board,
>> including by the new Bylaws, designed to improve services to the
>> community. (c) Adjustments to strengthen ICANN's ability to provide
>> other services to the community that can be funded through redirection
>> of existing resources. I would note that we are still in process of
>> recruiting staff to fill the positions authorized as part of the
>> 2002-2003 budget; this staff expansion as of itself will lead to
>> improved services.
>>
>> Any thoughts or proposals you might have that fit within these
>> categories would be most welcome. Proposals for expanded activities
>> that do not fit within these categories would also be welcome, but it
>> would be fair to note that it is less likely that there will be
>> funding available.
>>
>> Please could you let me have your comments no later than Monday,
>> February 3, 2003.
>>
>> Thank you, and all best wishes for 2003.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________
>> Stuart Lynn
>> President and CEO
>> ICANN
>> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>> Tel: 310-823-9358
>> Fax: 310-823-8649
>> Email: lynn@icann.org
>
>
> --
> 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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|