Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Dear Co-Chairs, Can I have the documents in PDF please? That said, as I don't get paid I don't care how they come up with the funds. I most certainly am not going to pay for it :-)-O Our concern should be the product we deliver, rather than how much it costs, and we have virtually no control over the costs anyway. Our staff is superb in what they have been doing and how they have been interacting. I really would not like to have to view this as an attempt by ICANN to influence WS2. greetings, el On 2016-02-05 11:15, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite):
The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize :
- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress
- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff
- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves
- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process
- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states :
In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Hi Mathieu, Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined. I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board's concerns around the "impact of project cost on ICANN's reserves" are legitimate. We should help ICANN's finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily amortized. Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: Hi Mathieu, Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined. I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board’s concerns around the “impact of project cost on ICANN’s reserves” are legitimate. We should help ICANN’s finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
+1 FWIW, I expect that the legal costs would reduce significantly. Aside ICANN expense, I expect the overall cost of participation for each volunteer would reduce since schedules will be more flexible. I can imagine some volunteers in this process has made this a priority that may have cost them one way or the other. Cheers! On 5 Feb 2016 2:59 p.m., "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily amortized.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" < kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined.
I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board’s concerns around the “impact of project cost on ICANN’s reserves” are legitimate. We should help ICANN’s finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu Weill *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM *To:* 'CCWG-Accountability' *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite):
The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize :
- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress
- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff
- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves
- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process
- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states :
In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Cost per participant is negligible. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 5 Feb 2016, at 22:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 FWIW, I expect that the legal costs would reduce significantly. Aside ICANN expense, I expect the overall cost of participation for each volunteer would reduce since schedules will be more flexible. I can imagine some volunteers in this process has made this a priority that may have cost them one way or the other.
Cheers!
On 5 Feb 2016 2:59 p.m., "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote: Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily amortized.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined.
I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board’s concerns around the “impact of project cost on ICANN’s reserves” are legitimate. We should help ICANN’s finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves.
Regards,
Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite):
The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize :
- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress
- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff
- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves
- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process
- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states :
In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
Please speak for yourself. Alan At 05/02/2016 04:41 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Cost per participant is negligible.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 5 Feb 2016, at 22:57, Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 FWIW, I expect that the legal costs would reduce significantly. Aside ICANN expense, I expect the overall cost of participation for each volunteer would reduce since schedules will be more flexible. I can imagine some volunteers in this process has made this a priority that may have cost them one way or the other.
Cheers! On 5 Feb 2016 2:59 p.m., "Jonathan Zuck" <<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily amortized.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined.
I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Boardâs concerns around the âimpact of project cost on ICANNâs reservesâ are legitimate. We should help ICANNâs finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves.
Regards,
Keith
From: <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite):
The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize :
- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress
- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff
- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves
- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process
- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states :
In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@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@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
Dear Co-Chairs, can you please ask Mr Greenberg to talk to Isak Jacobsen? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 6 Feb 2016, at 01:46, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Please speak for yourself.
Alan
At 05/02/2016 04:41 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Cost per participant is negligible.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 5 Feb 2016, at 22:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
+1 FWIW, I expect that the legal costs would reduce significantly. Aside ICANN expense, I expect the overall cost of participation for each volunteer would reduce since schedules will be more flexible. I can imagine some volunteers in this process has made this a priority that may have cost them one way or the other.
Cheers! On 5 Feb 2016 2:59 p.m., "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck@actonline.org> wrote:
Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily amortized.
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined.
I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board’s concerns around the “impact of project cost on ICANN’s reserves” are legitimate. We should help ICANN’s finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves.
Regards,
Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite):
The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize :
- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress
- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff
- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves
- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process
- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states :
In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
Co-chairs
_______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Keith, this is very useful. De : Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Envoyé : vendredi 5 février 2016 14:53 À : Mathieu Weill; 'CCWG-Accountability' Objet : RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Hi Mathieu, Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have outlined. I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Boards concerns around the impact of project cost on ICANNs reserves are legitimate. We should help ICANNs finance department better understand the future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Mathieu I support your approach but Im a bit confused. This report (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/icann_lobbying_payouts/) and this one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/19/real_icann_lobbying_expenses/) says that ICANN lobbying costs (characterized as education/engagement) exceeded the 0.6M recorded in the slide deck for FY15 by roughly 2 ½ times. Is there a better explanation for the categories involved? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Paul, I do not know these figures, but would note that Icann may have other lobbying expenses than the ones related to the IANA Transition ? I guess the question could be directed to Xavier Calvez if need be. Best Mathieu De : Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com] Envoyé : vendredi 5 février 2016 17:43 À : 'Mathieu Weill'; 'CCWG-Accountability' Objet : RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Mathieu I support your approach but Im a bit confused. This report (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/icann_lobbying_payouts/) and this one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/19/real_icann_lobbying_expenses/) says that ICANN lobbying costs (characterized as education/engagement) exceeded the 0.6M recorded in the slide deck for FY15 by roughly 2 ½ times. Is there a better explanation for the categories involved? Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti cle&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:16 AM To: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Dear Mathieu, Co- Chairs, Thank you for including the CCWG - Accountability in the loop on this, regarding The PROJECT costs to date and the substantial" budget overrun". I am totally in agreement with your suggestions / proposed contributions here. I agree , A project management office( PMO) needs to be created, with a much tighter budgetary controls mechanism put in place. I would be interested in setting up, managing the PMO, to roll out Strands 1,2,3 , with reporting mechanism put in place to & from ICANN Finance, CCWG,CWG and BFC. Could I be included on the next follow up call mid February. Happy to start on Strand 1 in preparation for this call. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: 05 February 2016 09:16 To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition Dear colleagues, This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached. A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal. In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter. We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)). We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner. We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one. Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions. Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs
Ah, I see. WS2 is starting already... The charter is clear on WS2 is to achieve, and it does not say "the work is subject to funds". el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 5 Feb 2016, at 20:11, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Mathieu, Co- Chairs,
Thank you for including the CCWG – Accountability in the loop on this, regarding The PROJECT costs to date and the substantial” budget overrun”. I am totally in agreement with your suggestions / proposed contributions here. I agree , A project management office( PMO) needs to be created, with a much tighter budgetary controls mechanism put in place. I would be interested in setting up, managing the PMO, to roll out Strands 1,2,3 , with reporting mechanism put in place to & from ICANN Finance, CCWG,CWG and BFC. Could I be included on the next follow up call mid February. Happy to start on Strand 1 in preparation for this call.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill Sent: 05 February 2016 09:16 To: 'CCWG-Accountability' Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear colleagues,
This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes from the call attached.
A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the call is the following (quoting the invite): The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.
In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our proposed contribution to this matter.
We believe we could recognize : - the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which is instrumental to our progress - the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff - the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project costs on Icann's financial reserves - the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship Transition process - that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them etc)).
We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a financially responsible manner.
We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which states : In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG. Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.
We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.
Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your contributions.
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu Co-chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Jonathan Zuck -
Mathieu Weill -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Buckingham -
Seun Ojedeji