Hi all, hi Steve: On Sunday, 19 July 2015, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Jordan, et al,
A potentially unintended consequence of the wording might be an inability to INCREASE the IANA budget should the need arise. If a need arises for the PTI do something not anticipated in its annual budget, ICANN ought to be able to provide the additional funds. I think these words, as written, impose the same barrier for adding funds as there would be for reducing the funding.
The community power this is discussing is regarding a community veto of the annual budget, which would result in it being sent back to the relevant board. It isn't an approval or co-decision power to pass / agree the budget, and there hasn't been any discussion of applying this power to changes within the year to deal with things that come up. (In my view extending in either of these ways would be problematic and inappropriate). So: I don't quite see how there is a barrier either way. It's unlikely the community would be worried about the proper resourcing of the IANA functions operator. If it needs more funds, Icann would provide them. What the separate application does allow is a minimal disruption of IANA's funding should there be broader concerns with ICANN's budget plans, so that seems to me to be a good thing.
Another concern is who determines what the budget should be and on what basis. Do we want to put the PTI in the position of campaigning to the community to put pressure on ICANN management to increase its budget each year?
Since the community doesn't set the budget, I once again don't quite see how this works. The question in your first sentence does need to be answered (as far as I'm aware the PTI board would propose a budget to ICANN and this would likely be accepted or negotiated). The community power here doesn't change that process. All - we need some more input here. What of people think, of the proposed approach below and of the discussion above? Cheers Jordan Thanks,
Steve
On Jul 18, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:
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. - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN 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. - 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. - 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.
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@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Skype: jordancarter
*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity