[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] Re: HOWCANN YOU LOSE VERIFICATION 1.3 MIL?
Eric and all,
Eric Dierker wrote:
> Mr. Williams,
>
> As a man I have gotten to know fairly well both by reputation and by personal
> acquaintance I am often set back by your posts. You have a reputation for down home
> Texan bluntness and a frankness many find offensive. But then you make a milktoast
> post like this and I wonder, if you did not spend to much time in diplomacy school.
Yes my response (See below) was a bit wimpish (Milk toast, your term). But
that was intentional on my part. I was simply trying to indirectly inform Mike Roberts
and the ICANN BoD that their is a bit of cleanup that needs to be done with
respect to their financials.
Diplomacy is a fine thing where appropriate. However I didn't feel in this
instance that diplomacy was necessary of even advisable. Hence my response.
>
>
> In diplomatic terms I simply created a fact based best case scenario for ICANN. In
> reality I pointed out down right tax fraud. The failure of our ex-boss to recognize
> that means he was duped by supposed professionals. The only explanation is that he
> was too consumed with other activities to review the work of his subordinates.
> Whoever his staff was should be flogged and run on the yardarm for letting down their
> skipper. I have to believe that Mr. Roberts is a victim in this circumstance as all
> members of ICANN and dot commoners are.
I don't buy the "Victim of Circumstance" argument personally. And I doubt
that a tax court would either.
>
>
> But o'boy whoa be to those who orchestrated this mess. Last I checked the IRS was not
> really very nice.
Well they are more subdued in the recent 2-3 years given their history of
behavior a few years back.
>
>
> As an ICANN supporter-Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Mr. Roberts,
> > >
> > > I certainly meant nothing disparagingly about you or your fine work in
> > > office. My meaning here was to suggest that ICANN needs to make more of an
> > > effort, in the future - starting yesterday, to attract real donations and not
> > > concentrate so much of it's efforts on cost recovery which it is not set up for
> > > obviously. A plain reading of sec. 557, with attention to pages 22 - 33 pretty
> > > well
> > > lays out the idea of how we Americans want our non-profits to fund
> > > themselves. But remember the idea of a non-profit is the other way around, it
> > > is so
> > > people can donate and get a tax incentive of some sort. You know when you write
> > > a
> > > check at a church bakesale you can only write off that which is more than the
> > > cake is worth. What we want are goodwill donations because people love our
> > > cause and it fits with foundation's idea of good - most of which are a result of
> > > long
> > > standing trusts written by ivy leaguers from the early part of this
> > > century and beyond (Mr. Gates being a noticeable exception, but certainly not
> > > Mr.
> > > Walmart{sorry forgot his name})
> >
> > Sam Walton.
> >
> > > Keep in mind these people with the money
> > > to fund ICANN have a section to follow to give away the money as well or there
> > > areconsequences. Mr. Crispin has a >be good and be lonesome,< but that is not
> > > true in the charitable trust and non-profit realm, here it is be good and get
> > > the
> > > dough.
> >
> > Yes, and these are many times, as history on nonprofit have shown,
> > mutually exclusive activities. But they don't have to be. And from the
> > documented evidence it would seem that ICANN and the BoD in
> > particular, have a conflict here.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Mike Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 14:05 -0700 5/3/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > THIS HERE IS A CUT OUT OF ICANN'S OFFICIAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT AT;
> > > > >> http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun00-letter.htm
> > > > >>
> > > > >> << We were unable to obtain sufficient verifiable evidence supporting
> > > > >> certain Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) accounts receivable
> > > > >> totaling $1,355,000 at June 30, 2000 or the related registry fee
> > > > >> revenue, which is included in the change in net assets for the year then
> > > > >> ended as described in note 2 to the financial statements; nor were we
> > > > >> able to satisfy ourselves as to the adequacy of the allowance for
> > > > >> doubtful accounts related to these receivables.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In our opinion, except for the effects of such adjustments, if any,
> > > > >> as might have been determined to be necessary had we been able to
> > > > >> examine verifiable supporting evidence regarding the accounts
> > > > >> receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts and related registry fees,
> > > > >> as discussed in the third paragraph of this report, the financial
> > > > >> statements referred to in the first paragraph above present fairly, in
> > > > >> all material respects, the financial position of Internet Corporation
> > > > >> for Assigned Names and Numbers as of June 30, 2000 and the changes
> > > > >> in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in
> > > > >> conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
> > > > >> States of America.>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now I just want one or two of you to march right into your tax office
> > > > >> and explain that you do not have the documents for, oh say roughly, a
> > > > >> third of your income so you ain't gonna pay on it because you should be
> > > > >> a non-profit. And these guys want to suspend voting rights for a
> > > > >> constituency that has not paid 15 grand.
> > > >
> > > > The extract above should be read in conjunction with footnotes 2 and
> > > > 3 to the audit report which appear later in the same document and are
> > > > shown below. The issue with the auditors was whether a receivable
> > > > entry was appropriate in the absence of a signed agreement with the
> > > > registry. The outcome of the dialog among ICANN's auditors, Audit
> > > > Committee, accountants, and staff was that it would be used for last
> > > > year's report, but that the related procedures would be revised for
> > > > subsequent fiscal years, as they have been.
> > > >
> > > > Payments after June 30th of last year have reduced the receivable
> > > > from $1.355 million to approximately $500,000.
> > > >
> > > > None of this has anything to do with tax exempt status.
> > > >
> > > > - Mike
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > "(2) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
> > > >
> > > > (c) Reporting
> > > >
> > > > The accompanying financial statements include certain ccTLD accounts
> > > > receivable and related registry fee revenue. As of and for the year
> > > > ended June 30, 2000, accounts receivable and ccTLD registry fees have
> > > > been increased $1,355,000 by the inclusion of these receivables based
> > > > solely on oral agreements between ICANN and the participating
> > > > countries. Such receivables and revenues are not supported by written
> > > > agreements nor has any allowance for doubtful accounts been
> > > > established relating to the receivables (see note 3).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Accounts Receivable
> > > >
> > > > Accounts receivable totaling $2,552,000 at June 30, 2000
> > > > includes amounts receivable from ccTLDs, gTLDs and IP address
> > > > registries of $1,355,000, $769,000 and $428,000, respectively, for
> > > > various registry and accreditation fees. Receivables from ccTLDs at
> > > > June 30, 2000 include amounts receivable from the following countries:
> > > >
> > > > Germany
> > > >
> > > > $ 483,000
> > > > United Kingdom
> > > >
> > > > 249,700
> > > > Argentina
> > > >
> > > > 49,400
> > > > Denmark
> > > >
> > > > 48,300
> > > > Republic of Korea
> > > >
> > > > 46,000
> > > > Australia
> > > >
> > > > 40,100
> > > > Switzerland
> > > >
> > > > 35,400
> > > > Italy
> > > >
> > > > 32,400
> > > > Netherlands
> > > >
> > > > 31,600
> > > > Canada
> > > >
> > > > 23,200
> > > > Other countries
> > > >
> > > > 315,900
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > $ 1,355,000"
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208