March 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA Meeting #78 - 31 March 2016
by Brenda Brewer March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #78 on 31 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/6wWAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action item 1#: Lise to communicate agreement to go with supermajority vote for question 1, noting that reference should be changed to GNSO Council and ccNSO Council. * Action item #2: Lise to communicate agreement to go with 30 days for question 2. * Action item #3: Lise to confirm as soon as possible whether additional CWG-Stewardship call is scheduled for next week. * Action item #4: CWG-Stewardship to provide input on the proposed financial objectives for PTI as circulated to the mailing list within 48 hours. * Action item #5: Confirm on list no objections to proposed recommendation to ensure that PTI multi-year guaranteed funding is covered in the Bylaws within 48 hours. * Action item #6: CWG-Stewardship to provide feedback on the suggestion to have Jonathan and Lise to serve as interim PTI independent directors assuming there are no issues around conflict and independence within 48 hours. * Action item #7: Confirm agreement with recommendation that all three IANA functions will be moved to PTI as it was originally foreseen in the ICG/CWG-Stewardship Proposal. Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Quite a few developments since Marrakesh - a lot of work has gone into implementation related activities including Bylaw drafting. * DT-O has been meeting as well to discuss items related to the budget. * Further meetings have taken place with the other operational communities concerning IPR. * Implementation Oversight Task Force was created and kicked off after ICANN Meeting Marrakesh - consists of ICANN Implementation Team, Chairs of CWG-Stewardship, DT Leads, Chair of ICG and representatives of other operational communities. TF to serve as a sounding board for ICANN implementation staff - any decisions are brought back to the CWG-Stewardship for review. TF has two meetings a week scheduled, to be used if needed. All of the meetings are recorded and transcripts will now be provided as well. Mailing list archives are publicly available. All the materials and recordings are available at <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation. Those interested to join the TF as an observer, please contact <mailto:yuko.green@icann.org> yuko.green(a)icann.org. 2. Implementation Planning - Staff update (Trang Nguyen) - see <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58721771/CWG%20Update%2031… ficationDate=1459441722785&api=v2> slide deck presented. * Interim PTI Board: will the ICANN Board appoint all 5 people and then these will be replaced? No, ICANN Board would appoint ICANN PTI Board members, these would not be considered interim. Further consideration will need to be given to how to select the interim independent Board members (see also PTI Board & Structure item) * Bylaws drafting - Legal advisors where pleased with co-operation between all the lawyers. Are progressing in a timely fashion. Expect to be ready to send something for review to CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship by 1 April. See questions circulated by Lise. * Question 1 - recommendation to go with supermajority vote. Reference should be to ccNSO Council and GNSO Council (not ccNSO and GNSO). Do both Councils have supermajority defined? GNSO Council Supermajority is defined in the ICANN Bylaws. What is the rationale for recommending a supermajority vote? Items are intended to have a high approval treshold. Agreement to follow the recommendation for a supermajority vote. Action item 1#: Lise to communicate agreement to go with supermajority vote for question 1, noting that reference should be changed to GNSO Council and ccNSO Council. * Question 19 - recommendation to go with 30 days. Agreement to go with 30 days. Action item #2: Lise to communicate agreement to go with 30 days for question 2. * How should CWG-Stewardship go about reviewing the Bylaws? Bylaws are expected to be published for public comment by 20 April so any input from the CWG-Stewardship would need to be received before that time. Consider scheduling an additional CWG-Stewardship meeting for next week. Action item #3: Lise to confirm as soon as possible whether additional CWG-Stewardship call is scheduled for next week. * Budget process (Chuck Gomes) - see financial objectives for PTI as developed by DT O and circulated to the mailing list. Consider what needs to appear in the Bylaws, for example in relation to reserve. If not in Bylaws, maybe in the contract? DT O is of the view that there should be a statement in the Bylaws that there should be multi-year guaranteed funding for PTI. DT O communicated this to Becky Burr who was involved in the Bylaw drafting, noting that the CWG-Stewardship had not agreed to it yet. Discussed in previous call that Sidley would provide a light touch approach, not committing to any kind of specific resolution, allowing for further deliberations to take place. General principle should be embodied in the Bylaws, the solution should be decided and embodied elsewhere. Support for this approach by those on the call, provide some additional time to those not on the call to express support / objection. * CWG-Stewardship to consider whether to submit comments on the FY17 Budget. DT-O to expected to make a recommendation to the CWG-Stewardship following tommorow's DT-O meeting. Deadline for comments is 30 April. Action item #4: CWG-Stewardship to provide input on the proposed financial objectives for PTI as circulated to the mailing list within 48 hours. Action item #5: Confirm on list no objections to proposed recommendation to ensure that PTI multi-year guaranteed funding is covered in the Bylaws within 48 hours. * CSC Charter - staff working with Donna (GNSO), Katrina (ccNSO) and relevant staff to work through some of the issues in relation to the CSC. For example, appointment / re-appointment procedures in GNSO and ccNSO. Status update will be provided to CWG-Stewardship team following those discussions. Ensure that both communities understand what the requirements are for the creation of CSC and relevant procedures are in place, for example for the approval of the CSC membership. Working out geographic diversity and skills requirements. * PTI Board & Structure: overview of discussions by IOTF - see slides presented during call. Suggestion to have Jonathan and Lise to serve as interim PTI independent directors assuming there are no issues around conflict and independence until the NomCom would be able to make the selection as originally foreseen as part of their normal selection cycle. Action item #6: CWG-Stewardship to provide feedback on the suggestion to have Jonathan and Lise to serve as interim PTI independent directors assuming there are no issues around conflict and independence within 48 hours. * All three IANA functions will be moved to PTI. This is considered to be in line with the CWG-Stewardship proposal. * ICANN legal is preparing memo in relation to difficulties of transferring staff to PTI. To be discussed further. Action item #7: Confirm agreement with recommendation that all three IANA functions will be moved to PTI as it was originally foreseen in the ICG/CWG-Stewardship Proposal. 3. IANA IPR * See <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58721771/ProposedPrincipal… ?version=1&modificationDate=1459444884447&api=v2> document shared during meeting and overview provided by Greg. Principle terms developed by all three communities. Now being reviewed by legal counsel of other communities. Once feedback comes back, these will be reviewed by Sidley, followed by further discussion and possible revision by the whole group. Following finalization of principles terms, group would move on to creating the actual documents required. * Consider including an introductory paragraph regarding history of IETF Trust. * More detailed discussion to take place in CWG-Stewardship at a later stage. 4. AOB * Next meeting on 14 April at 16:00 UTC. (note that a special meeting may be scheduled next week to review and discuss the draft Bylaws). 5. Closing Remarks

3 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Remaining Questions re CWG punch list
by Lise Fuhr March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Dear Holly and Rebecca, We discussed your questions at the CWG call today and the we decided to follow both your recommendations. But the CWG found that a clarification is needed so there is a clear reference in the bylaws to a supermajority vote by the GNSO council and the ccNSO council. If you have any questions in relation to the clarification please don’t hesitate to contact me or other members of the client committee. Best regards, Lise From: bylaws-coord-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bylaws-coord-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gregory, Holly via bylaws-coord Sent: 30 March 2016 00:05 To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info; Lise Fuhr; bylaws-coord(a)icann.org Cc: Flanagan, Sharon Subject: [bylaws-coord] Remaining Questions re CWG punch list Importance: High Dear Jonathan and Lise, and CWG participants in the Bylaws Coordinating Group, We appreciate the guidance provided on our questions last week from the CWG bylaw drafting session. We have two outstanding questions from the punch list we re-circulated last week. We have pasted them below for your convenience. As you know, our deadline to circulate bylaws is at the end of this week. We greatly appreciate your attention to this. To expedite matters we have included our recommendation for you to consider. Question 1. (and 12, 16, 17 &18) Please confirm GNSO and ccNSO supermajority approval threshold. Page 1 of CWG Staff’s response chart refers to supermajority voting of the relevant SO, but page 11 of the CWG Staff’s response chart states that the CWG “has agreed to keep the current practices (i.e., simple majority voting) for both the GNSO and ccNSO.” As the proposal specifically contemplates a supermajority vote for material changes to the IANA Functions Contract, the reference to “simple” majority on page 11 of the response chart appears to be an error. (Page 10 of Bylaws matrix); same question in relation to approval of recommendations relating to the IFR relating to the Special IFR and SCWG establishment and the separation process. Recommendation: Supermajority vote Question 19. Determine number of days within which ICANN must take all steps reasonably necessary to effect SCWG recommendations: “As promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the SCWG recommendations, or in the event of an SCWG recommendation to initiate a Separation Process, as promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the approval of such recommendation, ICANN shall take all steps reasonably necessary to effect such SCWG recommendations.” (Page 56 of Bylaws Matrix) Recommendation: 30 days Holly and Rebecca

1 0

DT-O proposed financial objectives for PTI
by Gomes, Chuck March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

DT-O agreed on the following financial objectives for PTI today: "The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN's financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services." This is being sent to the full CWG for comment, edits and approval. Chuck

2 3

Bylaw questions
by Lise Fuhr March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Dear all, At the CWG call today we will discuss the following questions from our legal advisors: Question 1. (and 12, 16, 17 &18) Please confirm GNSO and ccNSO supermajority approval threshold. Page 1 of CWG Staff’s response chart refers to supermajority voting of the relevant SO, but page 11 of the CWG Staff’s response chart states that the CWG “has agreed to keep the current practices (i.e., simple majority voting) for both the GNSO and ccNSO.” As the proposal specifically contemplates a supermajority vote for material changes to the IANA Functions Contract, the reference to “simple” majority on page 11 of the response chart appears to be an error. (Page 10 of Bylaws matrix); same question in relation to approval of recommendations relating to the IFR relating to the Special IFR and SCWG establishment and the separation process. Recommendation: Supermajority vote Question 19. Determine number of days within which ICANN must take all steps reasonably necessary to effect SCWG recommendations: “As promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the SCWG recommendations, or in the event of an SCWG recommendation to initiate a Separation Process, as promptly as practical (and within [●] [days]) following the approval of such recommendation, ICANN shall take all steps reasonably necessary to effect such SCWG recommendations.” (Page 56 of Bylaws Matrix) Recommendation: 30 days Please note The client committee will accept the recommendations unless we get objections on the call today. Best, Lise

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O proposed financial objectives for PTI
by James Gannon March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Thanks for the work on this Chuck, Unfortunately I won’t make it to the CWG call tomorrow so I will just lend my support to this here on list. -James From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 30 March 2016 at 9:47 p.m. To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O proposed financial objectives for PTI DT-O agreed on the following financial objectives for PTI today: “The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.” This is being sent to the full CWG for comment, edits and approval. Chuck

2 1

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 30 March 2016
by Brenda Brewer March 30, 2016

March 30, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 30 March 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/wiyAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda [---] Action Items Action item #1: Chuck to share updated PTI financial objectives with CWG-Stewardship for their review and input. Action item #2: All to review the budget documents circulated by Chuck on 24 March ahead of the DT O meeting on Friday. Action item #3: Xavier/Elise to provide update prior to Friday's DT O meeting on this topic (process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget) Notes 3. Finalize PTI financial objectives * See draft circulated by Chuck on 25/3: "The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN's financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services." * Update: 'Service Level Expectations / Service Level Agreements' to reflect that other communities use SLAs instead of SLEs. * Next step: updated version to be shared with the CWG-Stewardship for their review and input. Action item #1: Chuck to share updated PTI financial objectives with CWG-Stewardship for their review and input. 4. Status of recommendation for ensuring multi-year continuity of IANA Services funding * Recommendation made as a result of last meeting - communicated as input to Becky Burr for CCWG-Accountability Bylaw drafting efforts that took place in LA last week. Update from that effort suggest that there was a great level of co-operation happening in relation to the Bylaws, with the exception of the budget. Multi-year budgeting is not considered by ICANN part of the recommendations and as such has pushed back on the proposal of DT-O. Consider requesting CWG-Stewardship to clarify the intent of a multi-year budget with regards to a process to develop such a multi-year budget. Financial stability for PTI is a must. * Item will also be discussed during tomorow's CWG-Stewardship meeting to obtain formal approval (noting that it was already preliminary submitted to ensure it could be considered as part of the Bylaw drafting effort). 5. Possible DT-O or CWG comments on the Draft FY17 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget * See documents circulated by Chuck, especially text highlighted in blue. * DT O / CWG-Stewardship to consider whether it wants to submit comments. * Will IANA services remain free of charge? Nothing in the budget proposes any revenue for the IANA services. If others agree this is an important to make (that it remains as is), could be a comment to be considered? Budget for operation of PTI is detailed in the draft budget. * Question from Seun on mailng list concering compensation for root zone maintainer function. May need to be some compensation for contractual purposes? * Consider possible comments further during DT O meeting later this week. Action item #2: All to review the budget documents circulated by Chuck on 24 March ahead of the DT O meeting on Friday. 6. Develop a process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget * Xavier and Elise to meet shortly to discuss Action item #3: Xavier/Elise to provide update prior to Friday's DT O meeting on this topic (process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget) 7. Developing a Caretaker Budget * Xavier has indicated that he has some ideas in this regard. As he is not available for this meeting, this item is deferred to the next meeting. 8. AOB

1 0

Extended Public Comment on Principles for CCWGs
by Grace Abuhamad March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

Dear all, The Public Comment period for the CCWG-Principles draft has been extended to 16 April 2016. You now have 19 days to submit comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. Thank you to James, Jorge, and Seun who have followed Mathieu’s lead and submitted comments. In the next 19 days, I am hoping to see more comments from CWG-IANA and CCWG-ACCT volunteers :) Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:09 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: Reminder: 12 days left to comment on Principles for CCWGs Dear all, Just a quick note to remind you that there are 12 days left to submit comments on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. As of right now, only one comment has been submitted (by our faithful CCWG-Accountability co-Chair Mathieu Weill, no less!). If you need a review of what this is all about, my original impassioned note is below :) Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE. From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:14 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles for CCWGs -- Public Comment Dear CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability members, participants, and observers, I’m writing to request your expert feedback for the public comment on the draft framework principles for cross community working groups: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-…. I’ve attached the draft to the email for your convenience. Why you? You are the experts. You are the past, the present, and the future of cross community working groups at ICANN. You have survived one (or both) of the big IANA Stewardship Transition working groups over the past two years, and you probably (I hope!) have a lot to reflect upon and share. What’s the point? There are no agreed community-wide guidelines on the use of CCWGs, but they are such an awesome form of multistakeholder policymaking that the ICANN community is increasingly reliant on CCWGs for their policy efforts. The CCWG-Principles has taken on the task of developing a uniform framework of principles intended to guide the formation, initiation, operations and closure of future CCWGs. How much time do I have? The public comment period opened on Monday this week. You have 39 days left, until 23 April at 23:59 UTC. You could jot down some thoughts during your long plane rides to/from Marrakech, or even as you observe the action during the sessions! The email to which your comments may be sent is: <comments-ccwg-framework-principles-22feb16(a)icann.org>. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Wong (cc’ed here). I am passionate about this work because we’ve innovated and learned so much from the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups, and I have had the privilege and opportunity to work with both groups from their formation. I am keen to see where the outcome of this public comment period takes us next, and I very much hope that you will take pride in designing that path forward. —Grace

1 0

Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Call on 31 March 2016
by Grace Abuhamad March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

Dear all, In anticipation of our meeting on Thursday, please see the proposed agenda below: Agenda for CWG-Stewardship Call on 31 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC 1. Opening Remarks 2. Implementation Planning Staff update (Trang Nguyen) Bylaws drafting (Sharon Flanagan) Budget process (Chuck Gomes) CSC Charter PTI Board & Structure: overview of discussions by IOTF 3. IANA IPR (document for review attached) 4. AOB Next meeting on 14 April at 18:00 UTC. 5. Closing Remarks Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? LEARN MORE. STAY UPDATED. FOLLOW. ENGAGE.

1 0

FW: [IOTF] Welcome to the IOTF mailing list
by Grace Abuhamad March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

Dear all, Per the email below, there is now a mailing list for the Implementation Oversight Task Force that encompasses the CWG-Stewardship DT leads and ICANN staff working on implementation. If you would like to join the list as an observer, please contact Yuko Green (cc’ed). Best, Grace From: <iotf-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Yuko Green via IOTF <iotf(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Yuko Green <yuko.green(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 7:07 PM To: "iotf(a)icann.org" <iotf(a)icann.org> Subject: [IOTF] Welcome to the IOTF mailing list Dear members and observers of the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF), Welcome to your mailing list, iotf(a)icann.org. The list is open to members and observers, and publicly archived at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/. The current members are: Alan Greenberg (DT-F Lead) Alissa Cooper (ICG) Allan MacGillivray (DT-B Lead) Avri Doria (DT-N Lead) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (DT-D Lead) Chuck Gomes (DT-M/DT-O Lead) Donna Austin (DT-C Lead) Greg Shatan (DT-IPR Lead) James Gannon (DT-L Lead) Jonathan Robinson (CWG Co-Chair) Lise Fuhr (CWG Co-Chair) Matthew Shears (DT-L Lead) Paul Kane (DT-A Lead) Russ Housley (IAB) Trang Nguyen (staff) Yuko Green (staff) Nathalie Vergnolle (staff) Kurt Rossler (staff) Grace Abuhamad (staff) Marika Konings (staff) Observers are welcome to join at any time. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this list. Yuko Green Strategic Programs Manager Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +1 310 578 8693 Mobile: +1 310 745 1517 E-mail: yuko.green(a)icann.org www.icann.org

1 0

Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting on 23 March 2016
by Brenda Brewer March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 23 March 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/uyWAAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items * Action: All to review text for financial objective. * Action (Chuck/Grace): send language to CWG+Client Committee+ Bylaws Drafting team so that they can prepare draft language for inclusion in the Bylaws. Chuck will also communicate with Becky directly. Notes 1. Define the financial objective(s) for PTI * Staff provided a draft * Paul Kane provided edits * Xavier suggested to not include specific solutions (e.g. bank account) in the Bylaws. * As much as possible, Cheryl suggests avoiding a Bylaw recommendation because there is a tight timeline for the Bylaws to be drafted and submitted to NTIA. * Alan suggests "isolation" instead of "separation" or "independence" since "separation" has a loaded context in the CWG-Stewardship. * Context for Paul's edits: good practice in the UK is to pre-determine funds in the company's governing documents, as opposed to settings them aside at a later stage (which could be illegal in the UK system). * Paul: we want to make sure that the funds in the ICANN budget are specifically allocated to PTI. * Alan: Need to be able to ensure continuity of IANA operations should ICANN face extreme financial issues (bankruptcy, etc) Wording for draft financial objective: The financial objective of the IANA Functions / PTI is to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined in this context as [segregated from / sufficient isolation of] the IANA Functions / PTI budget from ICANN's budget to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions / PTI Budget as a result of changes to ICANN's budget. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for the IANA Functions / PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence in this context means that there are sufficient funds budgeted for and allocated to ensure that the IANA Functions/PTI are able to deliver operational excellence. Action: All to review text for financial objective. 2. Develop a recommendation for ensuring multi-year continuity of IANA Services funding * Paul: necessary that the affiliate body is sufficient, that staff are paid from PTI, not ICANN. * Could this by managed without a Bylaw? Chuck notes trust issues within the gTLD and ccTLD registries communities. * Cheryl prefers to not have a Bylaw as long as implementation can be designed to meet needs. Action (Chuck/Grace): send language to CWG+Client Committee+ Bylaws Drafting team so that they can prepare draft language for inclusion in the Bylaws. Chuck will also communicate with Becky directly. * Xavier: What are the requirements that need to be put in place that could acheive what a bank account could achieve, but a bank account is a pre-determined solution that skips the requirements phase of the rationale. * Xavier: There are different rules attached to an escrow account (in comparison to a bank account). * Alan: We don't want to identify the solution, we want to identify the problem/target for which we are trying to solve * Paul: Board of PTI should have control over the funding that is assigned to it by ICANN * Chuck: do we need to recommend that a task force needs to be formed to deal with the details on how to implement our objective? 3. Develop a process for development and approval of the IANA Services budget Awaiting feedback from Elise on how to involve her Team. 4. Developing a Caretaker Budget Discussion involves CCWG 5. Next meetings 20:00 UTC on Wednesday and Friday next week, Tuesday and Thursday following week Xavier is on holiday through next Tuesday

1 0