Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
-----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@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-----
ear All I did study the following which seems much better than uit was since the IANA Budget is now separated QUote *"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.* *Comment * LOWER MEANS WHAT LEVEL ? *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*" Pls kindly clarify the meaning of " LOWER" Regards Kavouss 2015-07-24 15:20 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
-----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@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----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh