[governance] US Congress & the JPA

[Roland Perry]

In message <4A293AE9.2070803 at apc.org>, at 11:34:01 on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 
Willie Currie <wcurrie at apc.org> writes
>I thought the line of questioning from Congressman Stearns on ICANN's 
>surplus was quite revealing. ICANN has a surplus of $7mil and is using 
>it to build a reserve fund which now stands at $34mil. So Stearns was 
>asking why ICANN as a non-profit doesn't reduce its fee structures, esp 
>as with the new GTLDs it will pull in $90 mil next year.

That seemed to me to be one of the bigger misunderstandings.

It was stated quite clearly that as a not-for-profit the best practice 
is to have approximately one year's "normal" turnover in reserve. That's 
a simple fact - I've seen the same in many other not-for-profits.

And separately, that the new GTLD process was supposed to be revenue 
neutral, just covering its costs, not subsidised from other revenues but 
neither contributing to the surplus. So the surplus they were aiming for 
(approx $50m) reflects the turnover *apart* from new GTLDs, and the $90m 
is the estimated cost of running the new GTLD scheme.

Now, you can argue about any of those numbers being out by plus/minus, 
(or even whether the new GTD project is a good idea at all) but that's 
my understanding of the accounting framework.

[If, once it ever gets going, the new GTLD process turns out not to be 
revenue neutral as intended, then there will no doubt be an enquiry into 
why that happened].
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance