+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@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@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@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 <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@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@internetnz.net.nz>] *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10 *To:* lisefuhrforwader *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; 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@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] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; 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 <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck

*Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 *To:* Jordan Carter; 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 <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM *To:* 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@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment To: 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 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) 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 | 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@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship