[Comments-reserve-fund-12oct17] ICANN Reserve Fund - Comment on Rationale and Target Level

[Stephen Deerhake @ GDNS]

The following comments are in my personal capacity as an ICANN Community member.  

They draw in part upon the submissions made by the ccNSO-SOP (full disclosure: I am a member of this SOP) and the GNSO Business Constituency (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reserve-fund-12oct17/attachments/20171127/132f8498/ReserveFund-input-FIN-27112017-0001.pdf and http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reserve-fund-12oct17/attachments/20171130/3bef3e7e/BCcommentonICANNReserveFund-0001.pdf respectively).

1. ICANN (non-PTI/IANA) needs at a minimum 18 months of reserve funding at the current budget level.
2. Per the recommendation made by the GNSO Business Constituency, “There should be separate and enhanced Reserve Fund targets specifically related to the PTI and IANA administration budgets”.  This recommendation is echoed in the submission of the ccNSO-SOP, which states “…there should be one reserve fund for ICANN and a separate one for PTI.”
3. With respect to the separate reserve fund for PTI/IANA administration budgets, I concur with the submission of the GNSO Business Community that this reserve should cover 36 months “…of expected expenditures.”
4. I concur with the cNSO-SOP “…that it is of paramount importance for ICANN to establish a long-term plan for an adequate reserve fund that could ensure the continuity and reliability of ICANN core tasks.”
5. I fully support the use of the new gTLD auction fee proceeds to fund the two (ICANN and PTI/IANA) reserve funds as a priority over any other use of these funds.

It is of paramount importance that ICANN protect itself (and especially, the PTI/IANA function) from a global “Black Swan” event, which seems more likely with each passing day. 

Sincerely,
Stephen Deerhake