[lac-discuss-es] ICANN se mantiene el dinero en una cuenta sin intereses!

[carlton.samuels en gmail.com]

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]

 Asunto: Re: ICANN se mantiene el dinero en una cuenta sin intereses! 
 De: carlton.samuels en gmail.com

 Uno de nuestros políticos, dijo en una ocasión "se necesita dinero en efectivo a atención». Que 
 observación no puede ser contradicho con éxito. 


 Aquí está la cosa. Prefiero trabajar lado el "beneficio público" de la calle. 
 Aquí es donde me gustaría que ICANN importa. Y como Christopher 
 [Wilkinson] tan infaliblemente identificado en el tema, no hay escasez de 
 puntos dignos de atención a tener en cuenta para el beneficio público. 


 Es mejor tener un problema de decidir los puntos que se preocupan por que no tener 
 los recursos para la atención. 


 - Carlton 


 ============================== 
 Carlton Samuels A 
 Móvil: 876-818-1799 
 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * 
 ============================= 




 El Mon, Nov 3 2012 a las 4:47 AM, Adam Peake <ajp en glocom.ac.jp> escribió: 


> Probably, applicants would say it's not ICANN's money; it's their's.
>
> or, how do we decide how any revenue used: a PDP?
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Bill Silverstein
> <icann-list en sorehands.com>wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Actually, it sounds like ICANN has learned their lesson.  A few years
> > > back, ICANN made an incredibly irresponsible decision to place $25
> > million
> > > of reserve funds in a broker managed stock market account, which became
> > > $20 million when the market burped.  Oops.  At the time ICANN's CFO
> > > refused to take any responsibility or to admit that they'd screwed up,
> or
> > > to explain why they'd needed $25 million of registrants' money for the
> > > reserve if, as he now claimed, $20M was enough.
> >
> > No, it sounds like they are still stupid!
> >
> > >
> > > I hope we all agree that ICANN's primary reponsibility toward its
> > reserves
> > > is to be sure that the money is there when it's needed.  That means
> > > something with no credit risk, like US government treasury bills, which
> > > are currently yielding 0.16% for six month bills and 0.18% for twelve
> > > months.  When you subtract off even the most modest broker fees, that
> > > rounds to zero, so I can't blame them for just putting it in a zero
> > > interest account on which they can draw as needed.
> >
> > There are many non-zero interest, no risk accounts.
> > >
> > > What were you expecting them to do?  Do you think it is possible to
> find
> > > suitable low-risk investments that pay significantly more?
> >
> > American Express has a savings account which provides close to .98%. .98%
> > of $352.3M is $3,452,540 per year. Or even a CitiGold checking account,
> > you'd get .1% which wold still be $352,300/year.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > John Levine, johnl en iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > > Dummies",
> > > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> http://jl.ly
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > At-Large mailing list
> > > At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/be924296d3.html
--]]