July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Jordan Carter July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Hi Jonathan and Lise, Thank you for this email. >From it, I understand the following: a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community veto procedure we have in place. b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set identical veto thresholds for both. c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a situation. e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside of this, but we will note it.) f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that *only *allows the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. *Please note: * *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires. In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the alternative proposal of a separate veto. *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. * *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?* WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this decision out of our hands. Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous note. best Jordan On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: > Hi Jordan, > > > > Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to > the CCWG. > > > > It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget > in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded > in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions > is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the > budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure > to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are > interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both > issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to > be taken care of in WS1. > > > > Best regards, > > Jonathan and Lise > > > > *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle > *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 > *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly > be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of > unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in > ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions > operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I > understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So > long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly > identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by > me. > > > > However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for > challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there > be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would > actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining > funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment > as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for > the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA > functions operation)? > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > > *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 > *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > My personal thoughts are inserted below. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / > helpful.... > > > > Best > > Jordan > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> > Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 > Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > Hi all > > > > As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the > IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need > to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate > > > > The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the > community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so > that it can do its job. > > > > In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: > > - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the > ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem if > the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the > IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. > - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget > as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is correct. If > any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make > sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. > - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is > proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.*[Chuck > Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold > might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability > of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by > some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so > that services are not degraded and security is maintained. > - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier > Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the > relevant financial year.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a true > statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community input > is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget > before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it until > late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto > wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days > for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto > process to take place. > - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there > had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, > funding would continue at the same level.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would > be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project > needed new funding? > > Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget. > So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN > budget or whether it is separate. > > > > I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget > identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA > Budget review mentioned by the CWG. > > > > Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different > threshold? > > > > cheers > > Jordan > > > > > > > > 1. *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the > community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by > the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject > the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission > and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public > interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other > matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that > the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating > plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to > the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would > include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared > resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs > should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific > function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a > yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an > annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in > advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It > is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved > by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN > budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop > a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a > component of the overall budget review. > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* > > > > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

10 15

New section - ICANN Community Assembly
by Jordan Carter July 26, 2015

July 26, 2015

Hi all I have taken the draft material from an older paper about the ICANN Community Assembly and pulled it into one place. Please see attached and debate away! I've tried to be clear on its solely advisory nature, and have suggested that this would be the forum to use for the Public Accountability Forum suggestion made by advisors a while ago. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

5 5

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Seun Ojedeji July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

+1 but I don't think "anyhow it's handled" would be sufficient to avoid negative impact. So I will be interested in knowing how it will handled. Regards Sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 Jul 2015 1:27 pm, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > However it is handled, I’d like to think that we can all agree that any > veto of the ICANN budget should definitely not have any negative impact on > sufficient ongoing funding of PTI/IANA. I think that this is the key point > I take from Martin’s message. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon > *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 6:51 AM > *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > My thinking in Paris and the debate that I had with Bruce Tonkin on the > IANA budget was largely consistent with Martins email below so I would > support this position. > > > > -James > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle > *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 11:10 AM > *To:* Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it > has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes > might work. > > > > My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA > functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s > budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be > ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment > in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a > squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. > > > > Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto > powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be an open > door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines > (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this > sort of power). > > > > Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: > > > > 1. The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN > to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but > it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be > full separation at some stage). There is an *obligation* on ICANN to > fund this. > > > > 2. The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. > > > > In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a > problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led to a > more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really > like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the > ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the *alternative > proposal*. > > > > If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of the > operator, we have: > > > > a. The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational > communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI or > with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. > > > > b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI > budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to > ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI *and only for this > purpose*. (That might, of course, require increased revenue requirements > from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary contributions, > justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) > > > > c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact > only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This > might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the > obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD > sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) > > > > I *think* the alternative allows this *without* requiring a separate > level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a > sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of > its normal budgeting cycle!). > > > > Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points > correctly, Jordan. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz > <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>] > *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10 > *To:* lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Grace > Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > Hi Jonathan and Lise, > > > Thank you for this email. > > > > From it, I understand the following: > > > > a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community > veto procedure we have in place. > > > > b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set > identical veto thresholds for both. > > > > c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that > participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no > customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. > > > > d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of > the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity > and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed > new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a > situation. > > > > e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a > reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular > transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside > of this, but we will note it.) > > > > f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that *only *allows > the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for > it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. > > > > *Please note: * > > > > *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes - > one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA > Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that > this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires. > > > > In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led > to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for > the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA > Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. > > > > I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said, > my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the > alternative proposal of a separate veto. > > > > *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does > decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. * > > > > *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?* > > > > > > WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC, > and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this > question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this > decision out of our hands. > > > > Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are > in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside > the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. > > > > > > Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous > note. > > > > > > best > > Jordan > > > > > > On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: > > Hi Jordan, > > > > Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to > the CCWG. > > > > It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget > in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded > in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions > is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the > budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure > to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are > interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both > issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to > be taken care of in WS1. > > > > Best regards, > > Jonathan and Lise > > > > *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle > *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 > *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly > be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of > unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in > ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions > operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I > understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So > long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly > identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by > me. > > > > However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for > challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there > be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would > actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining > funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment > as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for > the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA > functions operation)? > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > > > *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 > *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > My personal thoughts are inserted below. > > > > Chuck > > > > *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ > mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > > > All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / > helpful.... > > > > Best > > Jordan > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> > Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 > Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > Hi all > > > > As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the > IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need > to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate > > > > The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the > community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so > that it can do its job. > > > > In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: > > - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the > ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem if > the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the > IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. > - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget > as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is correct. If > any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make > sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. > - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is > proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.*[Chuck > Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold > might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability > of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by > some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so > that services are not degraded and security is maintained. > - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier > Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the > relevant financial year.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a true > statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community input > is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget > before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it until > late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto > wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days > for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto > process to take place. > - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there > had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, > funding would continue at the same level.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would > be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project > needed new funding? > > Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN > budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the > ICANN budget or whether it is separate. > > > > I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget > identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA > Budget review mentioned by the CWG. > > > > Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different > threshold? > > > > cheers > > Jordan > > > > > > > > 1. *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the > community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by > the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject > the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission > and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public > interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other > matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that > the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating > plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to > the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would > include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared > resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs > should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific > function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a > yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an > annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in > advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It > is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved > by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN > budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop > a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a > component of the overall budget review. > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* > > > > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > Skype: jordancarter > > > *A better world through a better Internet * > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Dr Eberhard Lisse July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Patrik, Thank you, this is helpful But what I actually want to say is that the 'basic' RZM operations must not become subject to a veto (as under current discussion within the CCWG) of an ICANN budget. I.e. there are IANA functions that may be used as leverage against ICANN and there are functions that may not. el On 2015-07-24 13:58, Patrik Fältström wrote: > On 24 Jul 2015, at 13:17, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote: > >> If the Master Root (currently the A Root, me thinks) were to >> switch to ICANN it must also have an ironclad and veto proof >> budget for running expenses due to Safety and Stability reasons. > > Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but we must be correct on how the > root zone management system works. > > The RZM is managed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA together. Two > agreements cover it. This will change as one of them is going > away. Root server operators (including Verisign, running A-root) > is fetching the root zone from whatever service the RZM is > providing accordingly. > > Questions regarding potential implications on the RZM during the > transition, is covered by for example the SSAC documents published > lately. Specifically SAC-067, SAC-068, SAC-069, SAC-071 and > SAC-072. > > What I think you say is that IF it is the case that the RZM > arrangement is changing so that the operational costs for PTI > increases there must be enough head room in the budget (and future > budgets) to accommodate for it. > > Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod > - -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVbI7tpcFHaN5RT+rAQIamg/+OggEuk2P3TgzAJP0MpArQHC8S/O5JIf5 hIRBKfiYit/fFIlEKM0R1DcDZysjvC3TSNgOhaVisZeWWy1+5VYVkHK3jTrS0rwR p6m8Pp5iRnIPVNKaj4kRf3AqLWPyCveAtl+uHC+hm7Q1pOmK11xi2GBulyDJORl7 wVJcf6QMpsBs7h4/F9GZ0pOZAd/Y4U7DA+jGKLL8nZPsLXX9i1dF/z6Mtf3+1yFC 6BgELcl6hJQRlcX5DgAC/U0SwdTqadLU9QtwzSd1C1Phhr0XgAE2s9M8tQFuZ5rI zpytyQxvdnvYA63S1GqQb79PDn/ezzCe/guJqbfK7bOFQZaUcOTx4gIS88tqsjiB zfF8ZbXii20ZwQlhLXpk2kwkVmflyQgFCzyIQ8gIfBNb8jPQ5T/3PQ9zqVjeLggL UAwVfkppN/Pk4blKsF0uC/keXCyPGtXgF9EHjDEkMlFp5epX0fr3BkTnMcpp8KSX 02fxBm4+2iJ8C9uiEWPinOUIh8AhV1LIO8bKEGV3rvGUGX+fApPJb+70AnnaVZOR NL8Y0lE8mxlLWwyOBW04SFlOXlhoiLwVkz/z04td2ZYalTEdx3lt2PD7BfcGU4n3 ISsADC6+QWpi5VkCRHwVKsrl4qH/9jkzS1PvkrLL2fB0/SPj/ZDruC64v7OnABjI fnXM9HT1L8Q= =mmfi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Matthew Shears July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Absolutely. On 7/24/2015 1:24 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > However it is handled, I’d like to think that we can all agree that > any veto of the ICANN budget should definitely not have any negative > impact on sufficient ongoing funding of PTI/IANA. I think that this is > the key point I take from Martin’s message. > > Chuck > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon > *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 6:51 AM > *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for > IANA Budget - pls comment > > My thinking in Paris and the debate that I had with Bruce Tonkin on > the IANA budget was largely consistent with Martins email below so I > would support this position. > > -James > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle > *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 11:10 AM > *To:* Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; > Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for > IANA Budget - pls comment > > Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so > it has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget > vetoes might work. > > My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a > non-IANA functions operation issue should not affect the IANA > functions operator’s budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN > budget needs to be ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem > of a planned investment in the IANA functions operation being stopped > or slowed because of a squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. > > Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in > veto powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be > an open door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget > lines (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a > danger in this sort of power). > > Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: > > 1.The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN to > the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but > it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there > be full separation at some stage). There is an /obligation/ on ICANN > to fund this. > > 2.The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. > > In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a > problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led > to a more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would > not really like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend > elsewhere in the ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly > for the *alternative proposal*. > > If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of > the operator, we have: > > a.The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational > communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI > or with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. > > b.ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI > budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to > veto to ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI /and only > for this purpose/. (That might, of course, require increased revenue > requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary > contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) > > c.A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact only > those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This > might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that > the obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on > gTLD sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) > > I /think/ the alternative allows this /without/ requiring a separate > level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a > sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as > part of its normal budgeting cycle!). > > Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points > correctly, Jordan. > > Martin > > *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] > *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10 > *To:* lisefuhrforwader > *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; > Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for > IANA Budget - pls comment > > Hi Jonathan and Lise, > > > Thank you for this email. > > From it, I understand the following: > > a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community > veto procedure we have in place. > > b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will > set identical veto thresholds for both. > > c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that > participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will > be no customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. > > d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a > copy of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That > is, activity and operations don't stop - resources are still > available. It is proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that > won't occur in such a situation. > > e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will > have a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate > granular transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs > somewhere outside of this, but we will note it.) > > f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that *only > *allows the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you > are happy for it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. > > *Please note: * > > *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two > vetoes - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one > for the IANA Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from > your email is that this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires. > > In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that > led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA > Budget for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue > with the IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. > > I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have > said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as > drafted, not the alternative proposal of a separate veto. > > *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG > does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. * > > *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?* > > WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h > UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make > on this question or whether your requirement for one or the other > takes this decision out of our hands. > > Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols > are in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations > outside the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. > > Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my > previous note. > > best > > Jordan > > On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk > <mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: > > Hi Jordan, > > Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our > requirements to the CCWG. > > It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the > budget in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is > sufficient funded in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems > that the IANA functions is dependent on the ICANN budget and that > makes too much separation of the budget more complex. The budget > bylaws and related processes should ensure to include both IANA and > ICANN since it seems that the two are interdependent on each other. > Not that they can't be separate but both issues – but the ICANN budget > and the IANA budget need to be a package to be taken care of in WS1. > > Best regards, > > Jonathan and Lise > > *Fra:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle > *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 > *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would > certainly be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of > cash because of unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean > that the IANA budget in ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the > money for the IANA functions operation goes into ICANN from registrar > sales of gTLD domain names (if I understand correctly) and from > voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So long as there is transparency > on how much this is (ie it is clearly identified as a separate line in > the ICANN budget), that would be fine by me. > > However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for > challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should > there be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I > would actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, > maintaining funding levels would be important and I would see the need > for investment as justification for allowing an increase. Is this > perhaps a decision for the direct customers (who are also those who > pay the costs of the IANA functions operation)? > > Martin > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck > > > *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 > *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for > IANA Budget - pls comment > > My personal thoughts are inserted below. > > Chuck > > *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM > *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA > Budget - pls comment > > All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / > helpful.... > > Best > > Jordan > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> > Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 > Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > Hi all > > As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for > the IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and > we need to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate > > The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the > community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate > level so that it can do its job. > > In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: > > * The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from > the ICANN budget.*/[Chuck Gomes] /* I don’t think it would be a > problem if the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget > provided that all of the IANA costs are included and detailed in > the IANA budget. > * The same community veto power would be available for the IANA > Budget as for the ICANN budget.*/[Chuck Gomes] /* I think this is > correct. If any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I > think it would make sense for the veto power to at least apply to > the IANA Budget. > * The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is > proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater > sensitivity.*/[Chuck Gomes] /* I think we should discuss this > further. A low threshold might make it too easy to delay IANA > funding and could risk the stability of the services. Lowering the > threshold would need to be accompanied by some other requirements > that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so that services are > not degraded and security is maintained. > * If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for > earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the > start of the relevant financial year.*/[Chuck Gomes] /* I don’t > think this is a true statement. The process has been improved > greatly so that community input is received early enough to result > in possible changes to the draft budget before the Board acts on > it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it until late June, just > before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto wouldn’t > occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days > for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for > the veto process to take place. > * The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there > had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial > year, funding would continue at the same level.*/[Chuck Gomes] > /* This would be a step in the right direction but what if a > critical improvement project needed new funding? > > Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN > budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part > of the ICANN budget or whether it is separate. > > I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget > identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA > Budget review mentioned by the CWG. > > Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A > different threshold? > > cheers > > Jordan > > 1.*ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the community to > approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the > ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject > the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, > mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global > public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability > or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship > recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent > and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of > all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An > itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA > department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support > functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized > into more specific costs related to each specific function to the > project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly > budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an > annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months > in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA > services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget > should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than > the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation > group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific > budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 > <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > /To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential./ > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > Chief Executive, InternetNZ > > +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity > > > > -- > > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > *InternetNZ* > > +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) > Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > > /A better world through a better Internet / > > > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987

1 0

FW: [client com] CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions
by Jonathan Robinson July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Forwarded in response to Jordan Carter’s email questions of 21 July 2015, Subject “CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions” From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 22 July 2015 02:16 To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [client com] CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Dear Client Committee, On the CCWG call today the question below was raised as to whether the Separation Review and PTI should be referenced in the CCWG list of fundamental bylaws. Our view is that both the Separation Review and PTI should be listed among the fundamental bylaws for the following reasons: 1. The Separation Review is part of the IFR, but we believe it should be specifically called out by referencing the Special IFR, the Separation Process and the SCWG. 2. With respect to PTI, unlike CSC and IFR which are created by the ICANN bylaws, PTI will have a separate legal existence and will not be created by the ICANN bylaws. Notwithstanding PTI’s separate legal existence, there are still implementation mechanisms that relate to PTI that should be contemplated by the ICANN bylaws. For example, as the sole member of PTI, ICANN will have certain statutory rights relative to PTI . In order to appropriately limit and direct the transfer and exercise of these membership rights by ICANN, provisions will need to be included in ICANN’s bylaws. These should be fundamental bylaws so that they cannot be easily changed. For example, - ICANN should not be able to change the composition of the PTI Board that is specified in the PTI articles and bylaws (it can change the people but not the designated seats); - ICANN should not be able to transfer the assets of PTI back to ICANN or to a new entity (absent a separation process that mandates a transfer); - ICANN should not be able to dissolve PTI, etc. In terms of how the Separation Process and PTI could be implemented in the CCWG proposal fundamental bylaw description attached, we have reflected our comments for CWG’s consideration. In addition, attached is a portion of the CCWG proposal that relates to the NTIA and CWG dependencies reflecting our proposed comments to the CWG dependencies section. Please let us know if you would like to discuss. Kinds regards, Sharon SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SHARON FLANAGAN Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:55 PM To: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr; Flanagan, Sharon Cc: ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; Becky Burr; Steve DelBianco; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Accountability Cross Community Subject: CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Dear Jonathan, Lise, Sharon On the CCWG-Accountability call today, we discussed the fundamental bylaws paper and the relationship with the requirements of the CWG-Stewardship's proposal. There has been some discussion as to whether we should reference the PTI structure, and the Separation review, alongside the CSC and the IANA Functions Review in our Second Public Comment Report. The last two items have been in the draft for a while. The first two have come in and out and as you can see from the attached, are currently out. We are relaxed I think about including them or not including them but seek your formal guidance on the question -- and if you have any, specific guidance as to the right way to reference if they are included. I'd appreciate your feedback by close of play Wednesday UTC if possible so we can resolve this on the CCWG-Accountability's next call on Thursday 23rd. Many thanks, Jordan Carter Rapporteur, Work Party 1 (Community Empowerment) CCWG-Accountability -- **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

2 3

CWG ok with Fundamental Bylaws inclusions
by Jordan Carter July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Dear all For the record, copying the below which confirms the CWG is comfortable with the inclusion of matters re fundamental bylaws, as set out below. best, Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Date: 24 July 2015 at 02:47 Subject: Re: [client com] FW: FW: CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions To: "Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com>, Client Committee < cwg-client(a)icann.org> Sharon, Thank-you for this confirmation. Jonathan *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] *Sent:* 23 July 2015 15:31 *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> *Subject:* [client com] FW: FW: CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Dear Client Committee, We think the summary below captures the CWG requirements for the fundamental bylaws. Best regards, Sharon *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* Jonathan Robinson *Cc:* Lise Fuhr; Flanagan, Sharon; ACCT-Staff; Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill; Becky Burr; Steve DelBianco; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Accountability Cross Community; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: FW: [client com] CWG Confirmation - Fundamental Bylaws inclusions Hi all At our WP1 meeting on 22 July (19h) we tentatively signed off these more abstracted/summarised versions of this: 5. The IANA Function Review and the Separation Process required by the CWG-Stewardship’s proposal; 6. The Post-Transition IANA governance and Customer Standing Committee structures, also required by the CWG-Stewardship’s proposal. I believe this language to be consistent with Sharon's draft and so the CCWG-Accountability will proceed with this language, unless we hear otherwise from you. The lawyers in drafting the relevant bylaws provisions will no doubt recall the further detail spelled out here. best Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *

1 0

501c3 status and Director Independence
by Gregory, Holly July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Hi Sam, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything so I shared your email and my reaction on the above topic with Mike Clark who is, as you know, a tax lawyer who specializes in non-profits. Here is what he had to say: “I am not sure why the ACs/SOs are any more or less likely to select someone who is not “independent” because they or an entity they are deemed to control have engaged in transactions with ICANN than someone selected by the NomCom. Only 3 of the current 16 ICANN directors listed on the most recent form 990 were shown as lacking independence—presumably one was the CEO, and the others were Bruce Tonkin (who is the chief strategy officer of an ICANN accredited registrar) and Chris Disspain, (who is the CEO of AUDA, the policy authority and industry self-regulatory body for Australia domain names). There is no requirement that to be an exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) there be any, or any particular number, of independent directors. To be sure, governing body independence may help assure that the organization is not organized for the private benefit of a non-charitable class, but loss of exemption comes from actually operating for a nonexempt private purpose, not from simply having a certain number of directors who are not “independent” as defined in the rules for form 990. The concept of “independent” directors was invented by the IRS when they redesigned form 990 in 2008. The instructions themselves (Part VI, page 18 of the 2014 instructions), say that “federal tax law generally does not mandate particular management structures, operational policies, or administrative practices.” In addition, as a practical matter, in answering the questions about the number of independent directors on form 990 (Part VI, lines 1a and 1b), the organization looks to the board in place at the end of the taxable year. Although it is possible that board removal and the relatively limited time of service of the interim board could occur right at that time, it isn’t likely.” Please let me know if you would like to discuss further. Kind regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1.212.839.5853 holly.gregory(a)sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************

1 0

Just checking on schedules
by Avri Doria July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Hi, What is the date for minority statements on the CCWG report? thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

That is not my understanding. First, let's be clear about nomenclature. "Interim" members occupy board seats immediately after the board recall. They are then (possibly) replaced by others according to the AC/SO/NomCom processes to finish the term of the removed director. I say "possibly" because in some cases, that term may already be almost over. Coming out of Paris, the NomCom would name zero Interim Directors. Today, I think it was left that they optionally could name some. In my mind, it makes no sense to used up the candidates that the NomCom may be holding in its back pocket (so to speak) on Interim appointments. That is a waste. These vetted and quality people should be replacements who sit out the rest of the term. Note that it is conceivable that at any given time, the NomCom may have no people to name immediately. They may have kept a few names for emergency appointments, but there is no guarantee that they are really available at the moment they are needed. People's lives move on. On another matter, one thing we have not discussed at all is how Interim appointments and Replacement appointments (finishing the terms) are counted with regard to term limits. Alan At 23/07/2015 02:41 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >I think this point has moved on a bit, based on the call earlier >today. The NomCom will not be putting up alternates. I believe >where we are now is that the NomCom will (in the event of a spill) >put up at least two and possibly up to eight interim directors at >that time. I'm not sure but they may have the option of not putting >up directors at all, but I think that did not come out on top in the call. > >NomCom gets more good candidates than they nominate, so there is a >pool from which to draw on, should the time ever come. > >I think this is right or close to it, but the next draft should clear this up. > >Greg > >On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >I agree with this as well, although I thought there was clear >direction on this subject in Paris. > >Regards > >Sent from Google nexus 4 >kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 23 Jul 2015 7:23 pm, "Cherine Chalaby" ><<mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> wrote: >I agree. It does not make sense to ask NomCom to nominate >alternates. Cherine >>On 23 Jul 2015, at 15:23, Marilyn Cade >><<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>I agree with not asking the NomCom to put up alternates. Spilling >>the Board should be so exceptional and a smaller exe board should >>be able to then launch a process, which could result in both >>elections and in appointments. >>M >> >> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:13:13 +0100 >> > From: <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>malcolm(a)linx.net >> > To: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz; >> <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org; >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] updated paper: Recall of the ICANN Board >> > >> > >> > On 23/07/2015 11:18, Jordan Carter wrote: >> > > See my edits in the files beginning with 2015-07-23. >> > >> > One comment: I thought the general view in Paris was that NomCom would >> > not nominate members of an interim Board. I doubt the practicality of >> > requiring it to do so. >> > >> > That seems to have changed; perhaps I missed some discussion. Or >> > misperceived the general view. >> > >> > Requiring NomCom to put up alternates at the AGM creates the "people >> > standing in the shadows waiting for a chance" that were mentioned as a >> > prospect to be avoided, and was accepted as a reason for not requiring >> > SOs and ACs to nominate alternates with every appointment. >> > >> > Moreover, how will NomCom find people willing to commit to drop >> > everything and become an interim director in the unlikely event of a >> > Board spill, knowing that it is highly unlikely this will ever come to >> > pass? >> > >> > It is surely much easier to ask someone "Will you agree to serve as a >> > director now?" than "Will you agree to serve as a director in an >> > unspecified number of months, should some very unlikely event come to >> > pass?". >> > >> > For these reasons, I think that excusing NomCom from nominating interim >> > directors is a better choice. >> > >> > -- >> > Malcolm Hutty | tel: <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523>+44 20 7645 3523 >> > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog >> > London Internet Exchange | >> <http://publicaffairs.linx.net/>http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ >> > >> > London Internet Exchange Ltd >> > 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY >> > >> > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 >> > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> > >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>_______________________________________________ >>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >WP1 mailing list >WP1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

1 0