2013 budget

["Raimundo Beca" <rbeca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First of all, I must apologize for answering out of date to this public
comment.  Effectively, I didn’t 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 it’s 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, it’s 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 ICANN’s 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.