[registrars] Re: Guidance from the Constituency requested.... PLEASE !!!!

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

Thanks for the comments submitted.....

I'll raise the points during the next NC meeting in summary:
Keep the budget as last year;
encourage building a reserve fund
employ an independent auditor/book-keeper,
no discounts (but keep under review), and
design a method of forfeiting a constituency's voting rights for non
payment.... whilst maintaing their participation

Thanks to all who responded...

Best

Paul

"Paul M. Kane" wrote:

> All......
>
> I have just come off the NC conf call and I would appreciate your
> guidance on DNSO BUDGET issues... (there is to be another call within a
> week or so...) .
>
> Please see below for the specific report submitted to the NC this
> morning - (I think it should have been published "days" in advance to
> allow proper review but putting that to one side.......):
>
>  I think we all agree the DNSO needs a permanent professional staff
> member. The expense budget for year 2001 is estimated at $107,600,
> e.g.,  $15,371 per constituency (so less year 2000). ( I don't agree
> with the itemised expenditure (in their report) but the overall
> expenditure budget is fine - if not high). The assumption made is that
> the DNSO Secretariat staff member's salary is paid mainly by donations
> received. My questions are:
>
> i) Should the budget be set at a higher figure to build up a reserve to
> cover the salary of the staff member in years when donations are not
> received?? ( We need the seed "donations" monies to "boot-strap" the
> process (and I thank Verisign for this generous donation) but in the
> interests of stability of employment of the staff/services/contingencies
> should the DNSO budget operate a "surplus reserve" account??
> ii) The non-commercial constituency wants a 50% "discount" off their
> contribution with the shortfall being picked-up by the rest of the
> DNSO.  What is the position of the Constituency..... (I don't like the
> concept of a discount, IMHO it sets a bad precedent .... but some of you
> have mentioned to me privately that it would not be a big issue.....
> please advise)
> iii) What "consequences" are appropriate if a constituency does not pay
> all of its dues by the deadline??
>
> The path we lay today will be used for years to come, .....in
> appreciation of your guidance ....
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
> PS.  The _interim_ DNSO Review document will be published on the 26th
> Jan and your DETAILED comments and recommendations are requested by 9th
> February
>
> > 2001 DNSO BUDGET
>       >
>       > As indicated in the attached note to the Committee from ICANN
> management,
>       > as of 6 December 2000, the DNSO had received a cumulative
> $95,500 in
>       > payments from DNSO Constituencies during 1999 and 2000.  In
> addition to
>       > this amount, various DNSO constituencies have indicated that
> they would be
>       > providing additional payments against their dues fairly soon.
> Whatever
>       > the amount collected, if the Budget Committee recommendation of
> a $59,400
>       > DNSO payment to AFNIC is accepted (along with modest payments
> already made
>       > to the Berkman Center for services provided to the DNSO), this
> would leave
>       > a balance in the DNSO account of around $35,000 plus any
> additional funds
>       > collected after 6 December 2000.  These excess funds could
> obviously be
>       > applied to DNSO expenses in 2001.
>       >
>       > In addition, as noted in previous Budget Committee reports to
> the Council,
>       > the Committee is in the process of structuring a "voluntary
> fund" that
>       > would be independently administered and that would be used to
> finance the
>       > cost of providing professional support services to the DNSO.
> When this
>       > voluntary fund is established, donations may be made to it and
> VeriSign
>       > Global Registry Services has indicated that it would match all
> donations
>       > made to this fund up to $100,000.
>       >
>       > As a result of the above, the Committee concluded that it would
> construct
>       > a proposed DNSO 2001 budget based on the assumptions that there
> would be
>       > at least a $35,000 carry over of funds from 2000 to 2001 and
> that the
>       > voluntary fund that is planned would come into operation and it
> would be
>       > used to cover the costs of professional support for the DNSO in
> 2001.
>       > Consequently, the Committee's budget analysis assumes that no
> funds from
>       > the regular budget are allocated for professional support and
> that in
>       > setting 2001 dues for the DNSO constituencies, a roughly $35,000
> beginning
>       > DNSO balance should be presumed at 1 January 2001.
>       >
>       > Using these assumptions, the Committee proposes  ( by a majority
> but not a
>       > unanimous vote) an expense budget for the DNSO for 2001 of
> $107,600,
>       > consisting of the following general categories of expense and
> the
>       > reservation of the $35,000 in unused funds from 2000 for
> contingency
>       > spending in 2001:
>       >
>       > Administrative                $12,000
>       > Telecommunications    $18,100
>       > Travel                        $25,500
>       > Web/Listserv Maintenance      $30,000
>       > Web casting                   $0
>       > Language Translations $10,000
>       > Professional Services         $12,000
>       >
>       >
>       > In particular, the Committee notes that it is assuming that
> there is
>       > professional support staff for the DNSO during 2001 and that it
> has
>       > budgeted no funds for Web casting.
>       >
>       > If this $107,600  expense budget is accepted, then the dues
> payment by
>       > each of the seven DNSO Constituencies during 2001 would be
> $15,371.
>       >
>       >
>       > CONSEQUENCES OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUES BY CONSTITUENCIES
>       >
>       > The Committee has considered the issue of consequences of the
> non-payment
>       > of dues by DNSO Constituencies and believes that a graduated
> system of
>       > actions should be put in place that would be based on the
> duration of the
>       > arrearage.  Specific ideas will be discussed at the Council
> meeting.
>       >
>       >