First of all, I must apologize for answering out of date to this public comment. Effectively, I didnt realize that this public comment was open. However, after my comments at this regard in the Public Forum at San José, a number of attendants to it encouraged me, at least for the record, to post also these comments on this list. Mainly, at San José, I stated that as a former ICANN Board Director from 2004 to 2010 and, also, as a former Chair of the Board Finance Committee, I consider that its my duty to recall the commitments with the ICANN Community engaged when the 185K Application Fee was adopted. The fact that the two main players involved in this decision, Doug Brent and Kevin Wilson, are not more in the circuit, forces me to recall now these commitments. Maximum that, at that time, I was quite vocal in supporting the 185K Application Fee, which undoubtedly is indissolubly tight to these commitments. Basically, the commitments engaged at that time with the ICANN Community in general, and consequently in particular with those who decided to apply or not to apply in this round, were the following three: · The Application Fee will cover immediately all the Historical Costs incurred by ICANN prior to the launch of this New gTLD Round; · This New gTLD Round is intended to be a zero sum game for ICANN, with no incidence in its regular budget; · However, at the end of the round, when the applications process is completely closed, ICANN is committed to absorb any eventual deficit or decide how to expend any surplus. Consequently, its absolutely inherent to the 185K Application Fee adopted, to strictly observe the following divestment policy: · Currently, the revenues collected by ICANN in this New gTLD Round - from the Application Fees, the Auctions or any other sources - can only be allocated to four pockets: Historical Costs, Risk Reserve Fund, Refunds and Administration Operational Costs; · On April 13, ICANN should be automatically reimbursed of its Historical Costs; · On April 13, also, the Risk Reserve Fund should be created. Undoubtedly, all interest perceived by this fund should be reinvested in it; and · Allocations to any other pockets are not allowed without an explicit divestment policy at this regard. In principle, it seems reasonable to wait until the closure of the New gTLD Round prior to divest in any other pocket. Clearly, a Multiannual Budget of the New gTLD Round needs to be adopted and updated permanently. Of course, the incidence of this budget should be reflected in ICANNs Budget in each fiscal year, but it should not be hidden as an annex of the ICANN Budget. Finally, let me express my deep concern that, in absence of an unquestionable clarification of the issues described above, a number of proposals on the usage of the New gTLD Round revenues for divestments not related to it will necessary flourish. By the way, at San José, I heard a number of proposals at this regard, which independently of their pertinence per se I consider absolutely unacceptable. Incidentally, the argument rose by some of the proponents that their initiatives are restricted only to the interest perceived by ICANN during the New gTLD Round, in my opinion are as unacceptable as if they were related to all the revenues perceived in this round.