Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition
Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don¹t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1. Specifically we can¹t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don¹t support P13 in the PPT the following: In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB Skills are useful but diversity is essential. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs. Obviously, the spending should not be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in both WG's processes. I would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to provide all the work needed within that cap. Legal fee structures and cost containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services. I will reiterate one further point based on my experience. A key tool in managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being staffed, etc. Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a standard tool. Greg On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com
wrote:
Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1.
Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following:
• In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB
*Skills are useful but diversity is essential.*
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
I would also note that the legal spend includes Sidley, Adler & Colvin and Jones Day. I question lumping ICANN's counsel in with the Working Groups counsel in an undifferentiated manner. Clearly, the WG chairs don't have the same responsibility for Jones Day's spend or oversight. That does suggest, however, that if a hard cap were put in place, it would need to apply to all 3 firms. Greg On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs. Obviously, the spending should not be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in both WG's processes.
I would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to provide all the work needed within that cap. Legal fee structures and cost containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services.
I will reiterate one further point based on my experience. A key tool in managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being staffed, etc. Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a standard tool.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet < sebastien@bachollet.com> wrote:
Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1.
Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following:
• In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB
*Skills are useful but diversity is essential.*
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
Hi Greg, See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015-10... <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015-10...> which sets out individual costs. Cheers, Chris
On 7 Feb 2016, at 12:14 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would also note that the legal spend includes Sidley, Adler & Colvin and Jones Day. I question lumping ICANN's counsel in with the Working Groups counsel in an undifferentiated manner. Clearly, the WG chairs don't have the same responsibility for Jones Day's spend or oversight.
That does suggest, however, that if a hard cap were put in place, it would need to apply to all 3 firms.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs. Obviously, the spending should not be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in both WG's processes.
I would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to provide all the work needed within that cap. Legal fee structures and cost containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services.
I will reiterate one further point based on my experience. A key tool in managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being staffed, etc. Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a standard tool.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>> wrote: Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1.
Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following: • In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech.
All the best SeB
Skills are useful but diversity is essential.
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>>
De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : [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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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
Thanks, Chris. I had seen that. I was referring to the way that the PowerPoint dealt with the matter. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hi Greg,
See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015-10... which sets out individual costs.
Cheers,
Chris
On 7 Feb 2016, at 12:14 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would also note that the legal spend includes Sidley, Adler & Colvin and Jones Day. I question lumping ICANN's counsel in with the Working Groups counsel in an undifferentiated manner. Clearly, the WG chairs don't have the same responsibility for Jones Day's spend or oversight.
That does suggest, however, that if a hard cap were put in place, it would need to apply to all 3 firms.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs. Obviously, the spending should not be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in both WG's processes.
I would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to provide all the work needed within that cap. Legal fee structures and cost containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services.
I will reiterate one further point based on my experience. A key tool in managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being staffed, etc. Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a standard tool.
Greg
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet < sebastien@bachollet.com> wrote:
Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1.
Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following:
• In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB
*Skills are useful but diversity is essential.*
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
Sébastien, Greg, Thanks for raising this point. It is well noted and I concur that building consensus indeed requires face to face discussions. Best Mathieu De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Envoyé : dimanche 7 février 2016 02:05 À : Sébastien Bachollet Cc : Mathieu Weill; CCWG-Accountability Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs. Obviously, the spending should not be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in both WG's processes. I would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to provide all the work needed within that cap. Legal fee structures and cost containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services. I will reiterate one further point based on my experience. A key tool in managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being staffed, etc. Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a standard tool. Greg On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> wrote: Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1. Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following: • In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB Skills are useful but diversity is essential. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
The Meetings are not the cost drivers. They must stop their fancy accounting (lumping in unrelated costs) and tell us EXACTLY what the CCWG ACcountability costs are. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 6 Feb 2016, at 20:00, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> wrote:
Dear Mathieu, Thanks for sharing this information. I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1. If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the items must have been done in WS1.
Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability). I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following: • In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F meetings for WS2 after Marrakech. All the best SeB
Skills are useful but diversity is essential.
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15 À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : [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
participants (5)
-
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Greg Shatan -
Mathieu Weill -
Sébastien Bachollet