DOCUMENT - Recommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)
Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs In preparation for your Recommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call. Thank you Mathieu, Thomas, León
Hi all I have a couple of comments about this budget stuff -- Asha and Cherine, it would be helpful if you could consider this before the call on Thursday and share views there if you can (as the board members that have taken most interest in this). *IANA budget - role of operational communities* On the role of the operational communities in the IANA Budget veto power - I have sympathy with the Board's position, and as rapporteur for WP1 tried to spur a discussion on having the decisions made on the IANA Budget veto by the operational communities. This didn't attract any support in WP1 or in the CCWG and so didn't go anywhere. Since the Board submitted its comments, it has become clearer through other comments that it may be better to stick with the proposal. The IETF has been clear in its comments that it wants no direct role in the IANA Budget veto, and the NRO for the numbers community in its comments supported the third draft proposal (it can participate if it chooses). Because of this, my recommendation is that we stick with the status quo as represented in the Third Draft Proposal. Asha, Cherine: has the Board looked at the comments from the other operational communities on this, and is it prepared to change its view in response? *The other topics* I support and regard as uncontroversial the inclusion of the CWG requirements and of caretaker budget detail being an implementation matter. On the identically worded comments from a couple of people to move the Budget power for IANA from fundamental to standard bylaws, I don't think we should move. The whole PTI construct is going to be set out in fundamental bylaws. This, like all the other community powers, should be treated the same way. hope this helps. cheers Jordan On 6 January 2016 at 15:59, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
*Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs*
In preparation for your R*ecommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)* discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call.
Thank you
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Hi, I agree with Jordan's comments on the IANA budget. To be more specific -
*IANA budget - role of operational communities* (snip) Because of this, my recommendation is that we stick with the status quo as represented in the Third Draft Proposal.
That works for me and it's inline with the discussions I am now having in the ASO. I should be able to share more details at the coming call, as the numbers community would be regarded as one of the operational communities.
*The other topics*
I support and regard as uncontroversial the inclusion of the CWG requirements and of caretaker budget detail being an implementation matter.
Strongly agree.
On the identically worded comments from a couple of people to move the Budget power for IANA from fundamental to standard bylaws, I don't think we should move. The whole PTI construct is going to be set out in fundamental bylaws. This, like all the other community powers, should be treated the same way.
While I don't have a very strong opinion, this approach makes sense. Izumi On 2016/01/07 2:37, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I have a couple of comments about this budget stuff -- Asha and Cherine, it would be helpful if you could consider this before the call on Thursday and share views there if you can (as the board members that have taken most interest in this).
*IANA budget - role of operational communities*
On the role of the operational communities in the IANA Budget veto power - I have sympathy with the Board's position, and as rapporteur for WP1 tried to spur a discussion on having the decisions made on the IANA Budget veto by the operational communities. This didn't attract any support in WP1 or in the CCWG and so didn't go anywhere.
Since the Board submitted its comments, it has become clearer through other comments that it may be better to stick with the proposal. The IETF has been clear in its comments that it wants no direct role in the IANA Budget veto, and the NRO for the numbers community in its comments supported the third draft proposal (it can participate if it chooses).
Because of this, my recommendation is that we stick with the status quo as represented in the Third Draft Proposal.
Asha, Cherine: has the Board looked at the comments from the other operational communities on this, and is it prepared to change its view in response?
*The other topics*
I support and regard as uncontroversial the inclusion of the CWG requirements and of caretaker budget detail being an implementation matter.
On the identically worded comments from a couple of people to move the Budget power for IANA from fundamental to standard bylaws, I don't think we should move. The whole PTI construct is going to be set out in fundamental bylaws. This, like all the other community powers, should be treated the same way.
hope this helps.
cheers Jordan
On 6 January 2016 at 15:59, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
*Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs*
In preparation for your R*ecommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)* discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call.
Thank you
Mathieu, Thomas, León
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Alice Jansen -
Izumi Okutani -
Jordan Carter