July 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Comments from Richard Hill
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May…>, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

6 8

ICG & CCWG-Accountability Webinars
by Grace Abuhamad July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Dear all, The ICG and CCWG-Accountability are publishing their documents for public comment and doing two webinars each next week. Here is the consolidated information: ICG Webinars: * Dates: 6 August at 19:00 UTC & 7 August at 11:00 UTC * Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-to -host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment/ ICG Public Comment Process: announced today! * Dates: 31 July until 8 September at 23:59 UTC * Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-call-for-public-comment-on-iana-steward ship-transition-proposal/ * Public Comment page and document: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-peri od/ CCWG-Accountability Webinars: * Dates: 4 August at 19:00 UTC & 7 August at 07:00 UTC * RSVP: acct-staff(a)icann.org * Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-30-en CCWG-Accountability Public Comment Process: expected to be published on 3 August. You can view the current status of the report here: https://community.icann.org/x/pKs0Aw Please let the secretariats know if you have any questions. They are cc¹ed here for your reference. Best, Grace

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to Host Webinars in Conjunction with Call for Public Comment
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) announces today that it will hold two webinars regarding the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. The webinars will help the public understand the proposal, the purpose of the ICG’s public comment period, and how to provide public comments. Topics covered will include: · What are the IANA functions? · What is the IANA stewardship transition? · What is being proposed for the transition of the IANA stewardship? · Why is the ICG seeking public comments? · What should commenters focus on? The ICG will hold two webinars at different times to facilitate participation across the time zones: · Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1fB5GMF) · Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1IpVZfn) The webinars will include about 45 minutes of presentation material and 45 minutes of Q&A. Webinar details The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Live interpretation will be available through Adigo Bridge dial-in numbers using Conference ID codes listed below. A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here: http://adigo.com/icann/. Should there be no appropriate dial-in number for an interested participant, the ICG Secretariat in conjunction with ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual – please send dial-out requests to the ICG Secretariat at admin(a)icgsec.asia. Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below: · Français – Conference ID: 75929475 · Español – Conference ID: 68385764 · 中文 – Conference ID: 825702 · Pусский – Conference ID: 345720 · العربية – Conference ID: 82855066 · Português – Conference ID: 759752 Participants who are interested in an English line but are unable to join by way of the Virtual Meeting Room may request a dial-out service by contacting the ICG Secretariat at admin(a)icgsec.asia. For further information about the IANA stewardship transition proposal, please see https://comments.ianacg.org.

1 0

ICG Announces Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Alissa Cooper July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The ICG is asking the public to review the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community. Comments are due by the deadline of 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Public comment web site: https://comments.ianacg.org Webinar details: https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t…

1 0

FW from Richard Hill on IANA trademark
by Grace Abuhamad July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill. On 7/30/15, 4:02 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >Dear Grace, > >Please forward this to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list. > >Thanks and best, >Richard > >================= > >I have followed with some interest the various postings on the >CWG-Stewardship mailing list regarding the issue of the IANA trademark. > >From my point of view, the issue is rather simple. The IANA trademark is >used to identify services provided in connection with three sets of unique >identifiers: protocol parameters, IP addresses, and top-level domain >names. > >The source for all those identifiers, and the entity that has published >the >highest level rules regarding their creation and assignment, is the IETF. >This is not disputed regarding protocol parameters, nor, I hope, regarding >IP addresses, even if the detailed rules for assignment of IP addresses >are >made by the RIRs. > >And I hope that it is not disputed for the legacy gTLDs and the ccTLDs, >even >if ICANN has made detailed rules for reassignments and for the new gTLDs. > >The IETF is not a legally incorporated entity, so it cannot register a >trademark. But its legal parent, ISOC, could register the trademark and >other intellectual property. > >Some years ago, ISOC decided to create an entity, the IETF Trust, >specifically for "the advancement of educational and public interest by >acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future >intellectual property and other property used in connection with the >Internet standards process and its administration, for the advancement of >the science and technology associated with the Internet and related >technology." > >Since the IANA function is nothing more that the administration of certain >aspects of Internet standards, and since the ultimate source of those >standards is the IETF, it seems obvious to me that the IANA trademark (and >indeed all intellectual property associated with the IANA function) should >be held by the IETF Trust. > >Best, >Richard >

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] New document: Perspectives on the IANA Stewardship Transition Principles
by Greg Shatan July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

All: You may be interested in the following from ISOC, providing their perspectives on the IANA stewardship transition and broader Internet principles. (I have not read the blog post or document.) Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan York <york(a)isoc.org> Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:27 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] New document: Perspectives on the IANA Stewardship Transition Principles To: Internet Policy External <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Internet-policy subscribers, Today we published a document providing our perspectives on the principles behind the IANA Stewardship Transition: https://www.internetsociety.org/doc/perspectives-iana-stewardship-transitio… As part of the release, Sally Wentworth published a blog post providing an overview: https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/07/perspectives-ian… With the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) poised to release its call for public comments on a combined proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions and important progress underway in the accountability discussions, we believe it is critical that we understand how the IANA stewardship principles as well as the IANA functions fit into the broader context of the Internet's operations and and international consensus. Our main goal was to show how these so-called NTIA criteria reflect broader Internet principles which have been adopted and embedded through years of global consensus. As we enter this next stage of the evaluation of the ICG proposal, we hope that this document will help in moving that discussion forward to achieving the global, open, secure and stable Internet we all seek. Regards, Dan -- Dan York Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society york(a)isoc.org +1-802-735-1624 Jabber: york(a)jabber.isoc.org Skype: danyork http://twitter.com/danyork http://www.internetsociety.org/ <http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/> _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

2 1

Legally a single member, but cross-community when 20 votes wouldn't suffice
by Sivasubramanian M July 29, 2015

July 29, 2015

Hello There are continuing debates over the allocation of votes across ACs/SOs. What if we momentarily step aside from the title of the proposal -single member- and examine the underlying notions? The idea of a "single member" is a creative idea of LEGAL design of the corporation. Let us step aside from the paper work for a moment. Viewed with understanding, the underlying idea is that of a cross community process. The 20 votes (or 25 or 30) proposal is a positive proposal to bring summary or representative positions from each constituent and further reduce it to a single position. It would work, but there is merit in various concerns expressed about the possible distortions in the use of votes - ALAC wouldn't get the next summit or GDD wouldn't get the next conference, or worse, both would happen by alternative accommodation !! The Community could excessively challenge the Board and Executive with its veto power !!! If these concerns are valid in any degree, then we could find a solution by going beyond 20 or 30 votes on matters of larger significance as well as on matters not resolved by 20 votes. The 20 votes could be deemed a sort of Executive Committee votes, good enough to express trust in, endorse or oppose most Board decisions or Executive actions, but when larger issues are to be decided, whether or not there is a stalemate, it ought to be elevated into a wider cross community process, even allowing ALAC members to vote along GAC positions and vice versa, unlike the party-whip positions as in a Parliament, before being reduced to the position of a single member. The design could be drawn up, or even a foundation laid in this stream to be more expertly shaped during WS2. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Martin Boyle July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Hi Kavouss, I think there are two separate things: 1. The process for defining the budget: it might be challenged by the community (inflated costs, not providing resources for necessary improvements, whatever). I would hope that PTI would set its budget with clear community (operational) support, so this should be unlikely. 2. As I said in an earlier post, "The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case ...). There is an obligation on ICANN to fund this." At this point I'd say the veto is on the ICANN budget. Does that answer your concern? Martin Sent from my iPhone On 26 Jul 2015, at 22:08, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Martin That was one side of the coin. Suppose PTI in its second year of its new life decided to increase its annual IANA Budget of precious year justified by all reasons given and then send it to ICANN for approvals. Supposed ICANN did not agree to that increase and established an overall budget which does not includes the increase request by PTI/IANA .If community objects to that what would happen ? Do we maintain the budget of previous year which was considered by PTI insufficient? Kazoos 2015-07-26 22:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Hi Olivier, > “Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?” Unlikely, but, for example, PTI started to do things outside its remit, or started to inflate staff and directors’ salaries unduly, or demanded an increased budget without a reasonable process with the community and community buy-in. I think there might be theoretical cases where there might be good reason for a budget veto, but I guess that this would probably be a pre-cursor to a special IFR. Martin From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: 25 July 2015 11:09 To: Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Comments in-line: On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle wrote: Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes might work. My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. My point of view is fully aligned with this. Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be an open door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this sort of power). Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: 1. The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be full separation at some stage). There is an obligation on ICANN to fund this. CWG IANA's DT-O dealing with IANA/PTI Funding looked at ways to have a very stable and predictable IANA/PTI budget. Some of us advocated to have 2 years' worth of IANA budget funding ready, of which one would be held in Escrow. This points to having a year on year IANA budget that does not change dramatically. I remind everyone that the primary concern for IANA is to ensure stable operations, year on year. Having the ability to veto the IANA budget, for whatever reason, without provisions that if the budget was vetoed and a delay would lead to passing the Fiscal Year Deadline, the IANA operations would still be funded, introduces instability. Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget? I do not know why the concept of a year of IANA budget being fenced for 2 years, including 1 year in Escrow, was not carried over by DT-O. I agree with the rest of Martin's message. 2. The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led to a more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the alternative proposal. If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of the operator, we have: a. The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI or with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI and only for this purpose. (That might, of course, require increased revenue requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) I think the alternative allows this without requiring a separate level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of its normal budgeting cycle!). Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points correctly, Jordan. Martin From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 24 July 2015 05:10 To: lisefuhrforwader Cc: Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Hi Jonathan and Lise, Thank you for this email. >From it, I understand the following: a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community veto procedure we have in place. b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set identical veto thresholds for both. c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a situation. e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside of this, but we will note it.) f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that only allows the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. Please note: The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA Budget. I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that this is NOT what the CWG-Stewardship requires. In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the alternative proposal of a separate veto. I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not? WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this decision out of our hands. Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous note. best Jordan On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: Hi Jordan, Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to the CCWG. It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to be taken care of in WS1. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Martin Boyle Sendt: 22. juli 2015 17:34 Til: Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by me. However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA functions operation)? Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 21 July 2015 01:09 To: Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment My personal thoughts are inserted below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / helpful.... Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Hi all As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so that it can do its job. In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: * The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the ICANN budget.[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think it would be a problem if the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. * The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN budget.[Chuck Gomes] I think this is correct. If any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. * The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.[Chuck Gomes] I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so that services are not degraded and security is maintained. * If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the relevant financial year.[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think this is a true statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community input is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it until late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto process to take place. * The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, funding would continue at the same level.[Chuck Gomes] This would be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project needed new funding? Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN budget or whether it is separate. I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA Budget review mentioned by the CWG. Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different threshold? cheers Jordan 1. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118<tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by James Gannon July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

In the CWG we briefly discussed a categorization of the PTI budget to account for exactly this situation, while I cant remember of we came to agreement on it as we were worried about straying too far into operational matters it may be relevant to this discussion. I and Chuck Gomes came to a rough agreement around the following: • Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget o This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget. o This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed) o ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o These are the standard business projects associated with the running, maintaining and continuous improvement of the IANA functions. Such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o All projects not captured in Category 1 or 2. IANA Special projects may be subject to a community review process. If we recognize that a portion or component of the overall PTI budget should be unblockable (i.e Cat 1 above) and that Cat 2 and 3 may be subject to additional scrutiny at various levels depending on the CapEx required we may be able to be sufficiently granular when we come to implement this power to ensure safety and security while maintaining the financial prudence needed to respond to carious financial conditions in the future. -James From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Buckingham Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:19 AM To: 'Seun Ojedeji'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Hi Greg, Seun, Martin, Everyone, As an accountant/ CFO these were exactly my thoughts. Could somebody explain ( maybe Xavier , CFO ICANN or Verisign ( Keith ? ) how it currently works between ICANN, Verisign , NTIA. As I said in Paris regarding the budget funding, allocation, this must to be ring fenced. After all the IANA operation is an absolute critical function. The stability , security of the internet is paramount. There should be no question of a shortfall / blocking of its budget, by the community or the ICANN Board. At a higher level I would personally treat the whole “IANA function “ ( to be defined) as a separate legal entity. Perhaps the “IANA budget “should be fixed at the outset , with incremental increases per annum , incorporated somehow into the bylaws. Please correct me if I am missing something here. Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: 27 July 2015 06:52 To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Well, maybe it's too early to determine that but I am of the opinion that it may be helpful to include a short description of what we mean by "IANA budget" in the document so it's clear what is being vetoed. I expect there is a an annual fee to be paid by the entity to the state, small as it may be. That's what I meant by subsidiary dues. Regards On 27 Jul 2015 2:29 am, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: We shouldn't assume that the PTI budget and the "IANA budget" are the same thing. The PTI budget and the iANA budget are not the same thing (unless I am very much mistaken, or unless we take a particular accounting view of things). ICANN will be providing various services, including "back-office" services, to PTI, such as payroll, HR, benefits, tech support (probably), etc., etc. The exact scope of services and an agreement under which those services will be provided needs to be worked out in the implementation of the transition proposal. The departments providing these services should be considered as part of the "IANA budget" to the extent necessary to support those services. This might be reflected in the PTI budget if PTI is "paying" ICANN for those services (after being funded by ICANN to "pay" for those services), but it's too early to know how the accounting will be handled between ICANN and PTI. On another note, I have no idea what "subsidiary dues" are. Greg On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, Except the cost relating to maintaining PTI as a structure (it's board, it's subsidiary dues, committees et all) I don't think the IANA operating budget would go beyond control to warrant a community veto. That said, there are quite a number of areas that may still need to be clarified as the scope of PTI budget. Does it for instance include personnel cost, does it include related community costs like the work of the IFRT or that of CSC. Also if there arise a need to veto on IANA budget, will it be in violation of the contract terms or just because of what the community feels is right/wrong. The possibility of whether IANA budget can be presented by operational community categorisation may also be a perquisite towards answering whether a veto on IANA budget will affect the 3 operational communities. Regards On 26 Jul 2015 10:08 pm, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Martin That was one side of the coin. Suppose PTI in its second year of its new life decided to increase its annual IANA Budget of precious year justified by all reasons given and then send it to ICANN for approvals. Supposed ICANN did not agree to that increase and established an overall budget which does not includes the increase request by PTI/IANA .If community objects to that what would happen ? Do we maintain the budget of previous year which was considered by PTI insufficient? Kazoos 2015-07-26 22:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk>>: Hi Olivier, > “Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?” Unlikely, but, for example, PTI started to do things outside its remit, or started to inflate staff and directors’ salaries unduly, or demanded an increased budget without a reasonable process with the community and community buy-in. I think there might be theoretical cases where there might be good reason for a budget veto, but I guess that this would probably be a pre-cursor to a special IFR. Martin From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>] Sent: 25 July 2015 11:09 To: Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader Cc: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Comments in-line: On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle wrote: Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes might work. My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. My point of view is fully aligned with this. Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be an open door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this sort of power). Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: 1. The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be full separation at some stage). There is an obligation on ICANN to fund this. CWG IANA's DT-O dealing with IANA/PTI Funding looked at ways to have a very stable and predictable IANA/PTI budget. Some of us advocated to have 2 years' worth of IANA budget funding ready, of which one would be held in Escrow. This points to having a year on year IANA budget that does not change dramatically. I remind everyone that the primary concern for IANA is to ensure stable operations, year on year. Having the ability to veto the IANA budget, for whatever reason, without provisions that if the budget was vetoed and a delay would lead to passing the Fiscal Year Deadline, the IANA operations would still be funded, introduces instability. Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget? I do not know why the concept of a year of IANA budget being fenced for 2 years, including 1 year in Escrow, was not carried over by DT-O. I agree with the rest of Martin's message. 2. The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led to a more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the alternative proposal. If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of the operator, we have: a. The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI or with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI and only for this purpose. (That might, of course, require increased revenue requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) I think the alternative allows this without requiring a separate level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of its normal budgeting cycle!). Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points correctly, Jordan. Martin From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 24 July 2015 05:10 To: lisefuhrforwader Cc: Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment Hi Jonathan and Lise, Thank you for this email. From it, I understand the following: a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community veto procedure we have in place. b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set identical veto thresholds for both. c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a situation. e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside of this, but we will note it.) f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that only allows the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. Please note: The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA Budget. I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that this is NOT what the CWG-Stewardship requires. In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the alternative proposal of a separate veto. I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not? WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this decision out of our hands. Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous note. best Jordan On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: Hi Jordan, Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to the CCWG. It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to be taken care of in WS1. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] På vegne af Martin Boyle Sendt: 22. juli 2015 17:34 Til: Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by me. However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA functions operation)? Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 21 July 2015 01:09 To: Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment My personal thoughts are inserted below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM To: cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / helpful.... Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Hi all As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so that it can do its job. In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: * The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the ICANN budget.[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think it would be a problem if the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. * The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN budget.[Chuck Gomes] I think this is correct. If any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. * The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.[Chuck Gomes] I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so that services are not degraded and security is maintained. * If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the relevant financial year.[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think this is a true statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community input is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it until late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto process to take place. * The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, funding would continue at the same level.[Chuck Gomes] This would be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project needed new funding? Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN budget or whether it is separate. I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA Budget review mentioned by the CWG. Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different threshold? cheers Jordan 1. ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118<tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
by Seun Ojedeji July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

Hi, Except the cost relating to maintaining PTI as a structure (it's board, it's subsidiary dues, committees et all) I don't think the IANA operating budget would go beyond control to warrant a community veto. That said, there are quite a number of areas that may still need to be clarified as the scope of PTI budget. Does it for instance include personnel cost, does it include related community costs like the work of the IFRT or that of CSC. Also if there arise a need to veto on IANA budget, will it be in violation of the contract terms or just because of what the community feels is right/wrong. The possibility of whether IANA budget can be presented by operational community categorisation may also be a perquisite towards answering whether a veto on IANA budget will affect the 3 operational communities. Regards On 26 Jul 2015 10:08 pm, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Martin > That was one side of the coin. > Suppose PTI in its second year of its new life decided to increase its > annual IANA Budget of precious year justified by all reasons given and > then send it to ICANN for approvals. > Supposed ICANN did not agree to that increase and established an overall > budget which does not includes the increase request by PTI/IANA .If > community objects to that what would happen ? > Do we maintain the budget of previous year which was considered by PTI > insufficient? > Kazoos > > 2015-07-26 22:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk>: > >> Hi Olivier, >> >> >> >> > “Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?” >> >> >> >> Unlikely, but, for example, PTI started to do things outside its remit, >> or started to inflate staff and directors’ salaries unduly, or demanded an >> increased budget without a reasonable process with the community and >> community buy-in. I think there might be theoretical cases where there >> might be good reason for a budget veto, but I guess that this would >> probably be a pre-cursor to a special IFR. >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> *From:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] >> *Sent:* 25 July 2015 11:09 >> *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader >> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >> >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> Comments in-line: >> >> On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle wrote: >> >> Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it >> has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes >> might work. >> >> >> >> My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA >> functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s >> budget. In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be >> ring-fenced. There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment >> in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a >> squabble about ICANN’s overall finances. >> >> >> My point of view is fully aligned with this. >> >> >> >> >> Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto >> powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it would be an open >> door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines >> (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this >> sort of power). >> >> >> >> Essentially, for me there are two separate lines: >> >> >> >> 1. The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN >> to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but >> it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be >> full separation at some stage). There is an *obligation* on ICANN to >> fund this. >> >> >> CWG IANA's DT-O dealing with IANA/PTI Funding looked at ways to have a >> very stable and predictable IANA/PTI budget. Some of us advocated to have 2 >> years' worth of IANA budget funding ready, of which one would be held in >> Escrow. This points to having a year on year IANA budget that does not >> change dramatically. I remind everyone that the primary concern for IANA is >> to ensure stable operations, year on year. Having the ability to veto the >> IANA budget, for whatever reason, without provisions that if the budget was >> vetoed and a delay would lead to passing the Fiscal Year Deadline, the IANA >> operations would still be funded, introduces instability. Indeed, why would >> any Community want to veto the IANA Budget? >> >> I do not know why the concept of a year of IANA budget being fenced for 2 >> years, including 1 year in Escrow, was not carried over by DT-O. >> >> I agree with the rest of Martin's message. >> >> >> >> >> 2. The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line. >> >> >> >> In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a >> problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget. Whether an issue in 1. led to a >> more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really >> like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the >> ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the *alternative >> proposal*. >> >> >> >> If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of >> the operator, we have: >> >> >> >> a. The PTI budget. Could scrutiny and veto by the operational >> communities be at this level? Either way (whether direct with the PTI or >> with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget. >> >> >> >> b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI >> budget. If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to >> ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI *and only for this >> purpose*. (That might, of course, require increased revenue >> requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary >> contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.) >> >> >> >> c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact >> only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line. (This >> might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the >> obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD >> sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.) >> >> >> >> I *think* the alternative allows this *without* requiring a separate >> level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a >> sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of >> its normal budgeting cycle!). >> >> >> >> Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points >> correctly, Jordan. >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz >> <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>] >> *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10 >> *To:* lisefuhrforwader >> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org; Grace >> Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> Hi Jonathan and Lise, >> >> >> Thank you for this email. >> >> >> >> From it, I understand the following: >> >> >> >> a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community >> veto procedure we have in place. >> >> >> >> b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set >> identical veto thresholds for both. >> >> >> >> c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that >> participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no >> customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget. >> >> >> >> d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy >> of the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, >> activity and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is >> proposed new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a >> situation. >> >> >> >> e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have >> a reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular >> transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside >> of this, but we will note it.) >> >> >> >> f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that * only *allows >> the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for >> it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes. >> >> >> >> *Please note: * >> >> >> >> *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes >> - one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA >> Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is >> that this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires. >> >> >> >> In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that >> led to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget >> for the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the >> IANA Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget. >> >> >> >> I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have >> said, my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not >> the alternative proposal of a separate veto. >> >> >> >> *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG >> does decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. * >> >> >> >> *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?* >> >> >> >> >> >> WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h >> UTC, and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on >> this question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this >> decision out of our hands. >> >> >> >> Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are >> in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside >> the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous >> note. >> >> >> >> >> >> best >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> wrote: >> >> Hi Jordan, >> >> >> >> Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements >> to the CCWG. >> >> >> >> It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget >> in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded >> in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions >> is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the >> budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure >> to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are >> interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both >> issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to >> be taken care of in WS1. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Jonathan and Lise >> >> >> >> *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: >> cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle >> >> *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34 >> *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one. I would certainly >> be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of >> unrelated issues within ICANN. That does not mean that the IANA budget in >> ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions >> operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I >> understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs. So >> long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly >> identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by >> me. >> >> >> >> However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for >> challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall. Why should there >> be? Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would >> actually see a higher threshold as more logical. In any case, maintaining >> funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment >> as justification for allowing an increase. Is this perhaps a decision for >> the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA >> functions operation)? >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ >> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org >> <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck >> >> >> *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09 >> *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> My personal thoughts are inserted below. >> >> >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org [ >> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org >> <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter >> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM >> *To:* cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org >> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA >> Budget - pls comment >> >> >> >> All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful / >> helpful.... >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Jordan >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015 >> Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment >> To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org >> >> Hi all >> >> >> >> As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the >> IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need >> to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate >> >> >> >> The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the >> community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so >> that it can do its job. >> >> >> >> In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts: >> >> - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from >> the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem >> if the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of >> the IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget. >> - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA >> Budget as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is >> correct. If any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it >> would make sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget. >> - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is >> proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.*[Chuck >> Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further. A low threshold >> might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability >> of the services. Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by >> some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so >> that services are not degraded and security is maintained. >> - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for >> earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of >> the relevant financial year.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a >> true statement. The process has been improved greatly so that community >> input is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft >> budget before the Board acts on it. But the Board still doesn’t act on it >> until late June, just before the new fiscal year starts. I assume the veto >> wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days >> for resolution. Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto >> process to take place. >> - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there >> had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, >> funding would continue at the same level.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would >> be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project >> needed new funding? >> >> Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN >> budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the >> ICANN budget or whether it is separate. >> >> >> >> I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget >> identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA >> Budget review mentioned by the CWG. >> >> >> >> Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different >> threshold? >> >> >> >> cheers >> >> Jordan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the >> community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by >> the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject >> the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission >> and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public >> interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other >> matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that >> the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating >> plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to >> the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would >> include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared >> resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs >> should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific >> function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a >> yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an >> annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in >> advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It >> is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved >> by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN >> budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop >> a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a >> component of the overall budget review. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> Chief Executive, InternetNZ >> >> +64-21-442-649 | jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> >> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) >> Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> >> *A better world through a better Internet * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >> CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

2 2