[council] [EXTERNAL] Re: SCBO Proposed Comment on Reserve Fund Replenishment

[Austin, Donna]

Hi Ayden

Thank you for the friendly reminder. I wanted to address your question about replenishment timeframe.

In short the RySG does not support changing the language from “three to five years” as proposed by the BC.

From an RySG perspective we see no reason to rush replenishment and believe that 5 years is adequate for the following reasons:

-        Every year that additional funds are added to the Reserve Fund means that ICANN is at less risk than the previous one i.e. the situation gets progressively de-risked each year

-        Going faster than 5 years will place more demand on the funder (most likely ICANN Org) and therefore remove funds available to ICANN Org and / or the broader community

-        It is far from clear that a 12 month Reserve Fund (of the full 2018/2018 budget) is required i.e. if ICANN goes into Reserve Fund mode, many non-essential items will be cut and the actual quantum will be lower

Our preference, therefore, is to maintain the original language in the Council response: The GNSO Council supports the proposed replenishment period which would see the Reserve Fund brought to the agreed target level in five or less years.

Thanks again

Donna

Donna Austin
Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions
Mobile: +1 310 890 9655
donna.austin at team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin at team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/>

Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.
________________________________
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 5:00 AM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] SCBO Proposed Comment on Reserve Fund Replenishment

Dear all,

Just a friendly reminder that the deadline for the submission of comments on the proposed Reserve Fund replenishment strategy is next Wednesday, 25 April.

If you have any concerns or requested edits regarding the submission of the attached document on behalf of the Council, could you please indicate so in the coming days, and I will work with the Council's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations to resolve them.

Please note, the attachment has not changed from the email sent to you last week, however there is currently one unresolved comment in the document, being the desired replenishment timeframe. The current proposal is for "five or less years" (which was the language suggested by ICANN org), however a representative of the Business Constituency within the SCBO has asked that this be changed to "three to five years." We would like to defer to the Council to determine which language is most appropriate.

Thank you very much.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 11 April 2018 11:30 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

On behalf of the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations (SCBO), please find attached a statement that we have prepared in relation to ICANN's proposed Reserve Fund replenishment strategy.

We are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the Council on 25 April, absent any objections from a member of the Council. Could you please evaluate the attached document and advise if you have any questions, concerns, or requested edits? Thank you.

Please note, there is currently one unresolved comment in the document, being the desired replenishment timeframe. The current proposal is for "five or less years" (which was the language suggested by ICANN org), however a representative of the Business Constituency within the SCBO has asked that this be changed to "three to five years." We would like to defer to the Council to determine which language is most appropriate. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180420/2d0ddfd0/attachment-0001.html>