March 2016 - CWG-Stewardship

ICG seeking confirmation from CWG
by Alissa Cooper March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship, We are writing to you to seek confirmation of whether or not the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations meets the accountability requirements outlined in the Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). As soon as possible, and preferably before March 1, please indicate to us whether or not the CCWG Accountability Proposal meets your requirements. Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG

5 5

Post Transition new groups
by Lise Fuhr March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Dear All, Attached is the table of groups that will need to be established after the transition. Since this is going to be discussed in the ccNSO tomorrow, Jonathan and I would like to forward it to the CWG for information. It is important to notice that this is a draft made by staff and we will discuss it at a call in the CWG. If you have any first comments or changes to the table please send these to the list but you will also have the chance to discuss it at a CWG call. Best, Lise

1 0

Verisign maintainer role
by Seun Ojedeji March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Hi, Even though this is out of our scope for CWG, does anyone know if verisign made any public/private statement indicating it will be willing to continue being the root maintainer post transition? If yes, apart from removing NTIA from the loop, will the terms be changing significantly (especially financially)?. Not to put Chuck on the spot, perhaps @Chuck could kindly indulge me on this one. Will appreciate a response from you or any other person who knows. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

2 1

Expectations of Service Level Expectations
by Grace Abuhamad March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Original Link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations Expectations of Service Level Expectations <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations #> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations# > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations# > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations# > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations# > <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/expectations-of-service-level-expectations# > Introduction Recently, ICANN staff has been working to meet the community requirements related to establishing metrics for the performance of the "Post Transition IANA" as it processes root zone management requests. For those not following the development of the Service Level Expectations, the agreed upon principles for the monitoring, reporting, and assessment of these requests were: 1. Attributable measures. Where practical, individual metrics should be reported attributing time taken to the party responsible. For example, time spent by IANA staff processing a change request should be accounted for distinctly from time spent waiting for customer action during a change request. 2. Overall times. Notwithstanding the previous principle, there is value in overall metrics being reported to identify general trends associated with end-to-end processing times. 3. Relevance. There should be a distinction between metrics that should be collected to support general analysis, versus which are the critical metrics that are considered important to set specific thresholds for judging breaches in ICANN's ability to provide an appropriate level of service. 4. Clear definition. Each metric should be sufficiently defined such that there is a commonly held understanding on what is being measured, and how an automated approach would be implemented to measure against the standard. 5. Definition of thresholds. The definition of specific thresholds for a performance criteria should be set based on analysis of actual data. This may require first the definition of a metric, a period of data collection, and later analysis by the community before defining the threshold. 6. Review process. The service level expectations should be reviewed periodically, and adapted based on the revised expectations of the community and updates to the environment. They should be mutually agreed between the community and the IANA Functions Operator. 7. Regular reporting. To the extent practical, metrics should be regularly reported in a near real-time fashion. As of 2 March, the necessary code changes to enable the collection of timing information for the Service Level Expectations have been in production. The next step may be to consider what we'll do with the data collected. In this post, we'll discuss how we got to where we are and what to expect going forward. Background: Setting Measurement Requirements A Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) Design Team, specifically ("DT-A"), was tasked with developing performance standards. DT-A developed a set of metrics to collect in order to assess the service levels provided by the IANA root zone management function. This development process included ICANN staff as subject matter experts who walked through the detailed root zone management process with the Design Team explaining how it works and discussing the implications of various proposed measurements. ICANN staff contributed our explanations of the typical processing flows, as well as sharing unusual cases that may make some measures more complicated than they may appear at first glance. While ICANN staff did not set the metrics, we did advise the Design Team when we thought certain measurements would be impossible to collect. The conclusion of this work is the Design Team's final report, which formed part of the CWG proposal. Implementation: Adding New Measurement Capabilities to RZMS Since the completion of the CWG proposal, the team that develops ICANN's Root Zone Management System (RZMS) has worked to instrument the system to capture system events that relate to the proposed new metrics. This was necessary as some of the measurements from the Design Team's work relate to fine details of certain process flows that weren't recorded originally. As mentioned, this work has been completed and the first version that supports this new logging was deployed on 2 March 2016.ICANN staff will be reviewing the first batches of log data to determine whether further refinement is needed to successfully calculate and report against the SLEs. Production Collecting Initial Data With the new performance statistics collection capabilities of the RZMS in place, ICANN staff has begun collecting raw data. These data will form the basis of future discussions with the broader root zone management community, i.e., the many organizations that manage TLDs. In these discussions, we expect to explore which metrics are key and what the Post Transition IANA's performance against those metrics should be. The CWG proposal requires service levels be set using analysis of actual data, and this data will be used in that analysis. Given the time constraints associated with the transition and our expectations that the metrics must evolve over time, we believe an initial data collection of three (3) months will sufficient to set a baseline for the initial thresholds as discussed below. Data Aggregation and Reporting While the initial data collection is underway, ICANN staff will develop the necessary systems and tools to aggregate the raw data flow and convert the data into the formats the community expects. These formats will include a dashboard view suitable for real time publication, and any regular reports that need to be generated. In addition, a version of the raw logs with confidential information redacted will be published allowing third parties to perform their own analysis and measurements as well as providing a way to independently verify our interpretation of the data. We will share our progress as the data collection and tools are developed and publish the data as soon as we gain confidence in their accuracy. Setting Thresholds and Service Levels With sufficient data in hand to perform comprehensive analyses, and with the tools necessary to analyze and report the data deployed, we will engage with the community of TLD managers to identify what the "critical metrics" are, and what their thresholds will need to be. These thresholds, once agreed betweenICANN staff and the community, will be the new root zone management performance standards in the post-transition environment. Beyond this, the regular feedback mechanisms defined in the transition proposal, including engagement with the newly formed Customer Standing Committee (CSC), will inform the future evolution of the reporting and expected performance of the IANA root zone management. Conclusion We have begun collecting the metrics the community and ICANN staff agreed upon. ICANN staff looks forward to working with the community as the data related to timing of root zone management actions by staff, community, and others are obtained, collated, and made available to those interested in keeping with ICANN's commitment to openness and transparency. We anticipate that a period of three (3) months of metrics collection will provide sufficient data to set performance targets for IANA. After the transition has been implemented, the CSC will be able to evaluate IANA root zone management performance and adjust specific service levels to best meet the community's needs.

1 0

IANA Stewardship Implementation
by Jonathan Robinson March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

All, Lise and I today attended the session entitled: https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-impl ementation It became clear during the course of the session that material new details on the implementation of the CWG Stewardship proposal were being released for the first time. This raises two issues: 1. Process - How do we ensure that ICANN implementation staff do not get out of synchronisation with the CWG? 2. Substance - Do we agree with the details presented in the session today? Both Lise and I stood up and made points to this effect during the meeting as did some of the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It does seem that this was an inadvertent oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress. However, it is also evident that there is a need for the ICANN staff implementation team to have more rapid or agile reference to the CWG, in addition to our bi-weekly updates / meetings. Therefore, in order to address this need, the co-chairs propose to form an implementation oversight task force comprising the CWG co-chairs and the DT leads. The outcomes will come back to the CWG in any case but we believe that we need a capability to track the implementation work as closely as possible and as it evolves. Please can we have any comments or concerns with this proposal as soon as possible. Thank-you, Lise and Jonathan Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship

12 12

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation
by Alan Greenberg March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Support (wearing my DT-F hat). Alan At 07/03/2016 06:44 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Agree absolutely! Count me in >On 7 Mar 2016 18:05, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" ><<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >+1 I also support - and if I may add, I attended >the session today and was very surprised that >the stage was just populated by ICANN Staff. I >have concerns that this kind of fumble is >exactly the kind of thing that breeds lack of >trust so I am pleased to see the proposal Jonathan has shared with us. >Kindest regards, > >Olivier > >On 07/03/2016 17:09, Greg Shatan wrote: >>I support this as well. >> >>Greg >> >>On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Lindeberg, >>Elise <<mailto:elise.lindeberg@nkom.no>elise.lindeberg(a)nkom.no> wrote: >> >>Also in support ! >> >> >> >>Elise >> >> >> >> >> >>Elise Lindeberg >> >>Senior Legal Adviser >> >>Norwegian GAC representative >> >>Norwegian Communications Authority >> >>Dir. <tel:%2B47%2022%20824607>+47 22 824607 >>Mob. <tel:%2B47%2090190947>+47 90190947 >> >><mailto:ekl@nkom.no>ekl(a)nkom.no >> >> >> >> >> >>Fra: >><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] PÃ¥ vegne av Jian C. Chang >>Sendt: 7. mars 2016 17:06 >>Til: Eduardo Diaz; >><mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info; cwg-stewardship >>Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation >> >> >> >>Agree and support Jonathan's proposal. >> >> >> >>+1 to Mathew, not DT lead too, but will be >>happy to participate in the task force if necessary. >> >> >> >>Jian Chang >> >>KNET >> >> >> >> >> >>From: <mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>Eduardo Diaz >> >>Date: 2016-03-07 23:56 >> >>To: <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson; >><mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship >> >>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA Stewardship Implementation >> >>I do support this proposal. >> >> >> >>Thanks for being so attentive to these details. >> >> >> >>-ed >> >>On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:13 PM Jonathan >>Robinson <<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: >> >>All, >> >> >> >>Lise and I today attended the session entitled: >> >> >> >><https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp…>https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp… >> >> >> >>It became clear during the course of the >>session that material new details on the >>implementation of the CWG Stewardship proposal >>were being released for the first time. >> >> >> >>This raises two issues: >> >> >> >>1. Process How do we ensure that ICANN >>implementation staff do not get out of synchronisation with the CWG? >> >>2. Substance Do we agree with the >>details presented in the session today? >> >> >> >>Both Lise and I stood up and made points to >>this effect during the meeting as did some of >>the CWG Stewardship Members / Participants. >> >>We also spoke with Akram & Trang afterwards. It >>does seem that this was an inadvertent >>oversight driven by a desire and need to make progress. >> >> >> >>However, it is also evident that there is a >>need for the ICANN staff implementation team to >>have more rapid or agile reference to the CWG, >>in addition to our bi-weekly updates / meetings. >> >> >> >>Therefore, in order to address this need, the >>co-chairs propose to form an implementation >>oversight task force comprising the CWG >>co-chairs and the DT leads. The outcomes will >>come back to the CWG in any case but we believe >>that we need a capability to track the >>implementation work as closely as possible and as it evolves. >> >> >> >>Please can we have any comments or concerns >>with this proposal as soon as possible. >> >> >> >>Thank-you, >> >> >> >> >> >>Lise and Jonathan >> >>Co-Chairs, CWG Stewardship >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

2 1

Input Needed: Bylaws Matrix Responses and Three Issues
by Grace Abuhamad March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Dear CWG-Stewardship and ICANN Implementation Team, Please see attached the latest version of the responses to the Sidley Bylaws Matrix as well as a list of three currently unresolved issues for CWG-Stewardship input (also copied below for your convenience). The action assigned on the CWG-Stewardship call today was to share these documents with the group, and simultaneously with the ICANN implementation team for any input they may have. On the CWG-Stewardship call today, we outlined the three issues and had an initial, but non-conclusive, discussion about them. On the thresholds issue, Donna Austin suggests we go with current practices, i.e. simple majority, since Charter amendments will go a public comment process prior to approval by the ccNSO and GNSO. Paul Kane agrees. Looking forward to your input, Grace A recap of the three issues presented on call (also in document attached): There are three issues for the CWG-Stewardship to address: Issue #1: Thresholds For the CSC Charter, the CCNSO and GNSO Councils must approve amendments. The DT leads noted that the intention is that the respective Councils (ccNSO and GNSO) would vote to ratify any proposed charter amendment/s and the threshold would be in accordance with their respective methods of operation. However, the current responses further suggest that, ³supermajority of both Councils would seem appropriate if this can be accommodated.² Staff would like to note that supermajority may not be consistent with current practice in the GNSO and CCNSO Councils. In the case of the GNSO, the default voting threshold is simple majority of each house. Should a supermajority vote be deemed appropriate for this purpose, the relevant section in the ICANN bylaws that details voting thresholds that differ from simple majority, would need to be updated. Does the CWG want to define a higher threshold for the CCNSO and GNSO councils or proceed with existing operating procedures within the Councils? Issue #2: Timing of the first IANA Function Review Paragraph (194) of the CWG Final Proposal provides that the IFR ³will not commence² until two years after this date, but Paragraph (301) provides that the initial IFR must be completed by this 2-year anniversary Current response: Paragraph 301 being focused on the IFR while Paragraph 194 being a timetable makes Paragraph 301 the determining one. However, Paragraphs 267/268 seem to confirm the ambiguity. Separately, Paragraph 194 does allow, however for a Special IFR sooner than 2 years if needed. CWG needs to choose: 1. The first IFR will not commence until two years after the Transition 2. The first IFR will be completed by the 2-year anniversary of the Transition Issue #3: Use of the Empowered Community mechanisms for the Special IFR The CWG needs to consider specifying a forum and process for the Special IFR. Paragraphs (125) and (303) of the CWG Final Proposal provide that consideration of whether to trigger a Special IFR ³may² include a public comment period but is silent on who determines whether there should be a public comment period. If the CWG-Stewardship adopts the Empowered Community mechanism of the CCWG-Accountability, then the process for escalation includes a discussion forum. Would that be sufficient? If not, the CWG-Stewardship could mandate a standard ICANN public comment period before triggering a Special IFR.

4 4

The IANA Stewardship Transition: The Last Few Inches
by Grace Abuhamad March 3, 2016

March 3, 2016

Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-few -inches The IANA Stewardship Transition: The Last Few Inches <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-f ew-inches#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-fe w-inches#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-fe w-inches#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-fe w-inches#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-fe w-inches#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-iana-stewardship-transition-the-last-fe w-inches#> When ICANN was first formed in 1998, the intent was for the organization and the multistakeholder community to eventually become the stewards of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. Now, almost two years since the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition the role in the IANA functions to the multistakeholder community, the community has come together to do so much. We want to highlight a few noteworthy accomplishments. The community: * Established two inclusive and open processes, one to outline how best to facilitate the succession of NTIA¹s stewardship of the IANA functions, and a second to ensure that ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community in the absence of its contractual relationship with the U.S. Government. * Discussed, debated, organized or planned these processes at over 1,100 events around the world. * Held a combined nine public comment periods to finalize the proposals, ensuring that all of the Internet¹s diverse stakeholders would have a voice in the transition process. * Developed two expertly crafted consensus proposals to submit to NTIA regarding the stewardship of the IANA functions, thereby proving the strength of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Reaching a point of consensus was not easy, as anyone who was involved in this process can attest. As one of the leaders in this process stated, it¹s often painful, lengthy and often takes detours. However, meeting this challenge defines the multistakeholder model, and is one of the reasons the Internet has become the global platform for economic and social growth it is today. With ICANN55 only days away, we find ourselves in a very exciting and promising moment. The IANAStewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) provisionally finalized its proposal back in October, outlining how to best facilitate the succession of NTIA¹s stewardship of the IANA functions. Now, after receiving confirmation from the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that its accountability requirements have been addressed in the final Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANNAccountability (CCWG-Accountability) Work Stream 1 Recommendations, the ICG will hold a call to determine if the proposal can be submitted to the ICANN Board. In addition, the CCWG-Accountabilitydistributed <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-char tering-organizations> its Supplemental Final Report to its six Chartering Organizations for approval. The group is optimistic that they will be able to send the approved Report to the ICANN Board, for transmission toNTIA, in Marrakech. While many important accountability discussions will be taking place within the Chartering Organizations, several transition-related sessions are scheduled for ICANN55 in Marrakech: DateTimeDescriptionLocation Friday, 4 March 08:00-17:00CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/fri-ccwg-accountability> Cristal Monday, 7 March 10:30-11:45IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp lementation> Atlas Monday, 7 March 13:30-15:00CCWG-Accountability Engagement Session <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-ccwg-accountability> Atlas Thursday, 10 March 09:00-12:00CCWG-Accountability Working Session on Developing a Framework for Work Stream 2 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-ccwg-accountability- ws2> Oliveraie Note: The ICG will not be hosting a formal session at ICANN55. As was discussed at a session in Dublin, ICANN has been involved in pre-planning and preparing ourselves for implementation of the elements of the ICG and CCWG-Accountability proposals. We encourage those who are interested in our progress to read previous blogs <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-stewardship-transition-implementation- planning-taking-stock-of-the-last-two-months-and-looking-forward-to-2016> and to attend our Monday morning IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation <https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-imp lementation> session, taking place after the Opening Ceremony. ICANN's evolution is not over, but achieving this milestone is essential to the community and the success of global Internet. We¹d like to thank everyone involved for their historic efforts throughout the community proposal development process. We look forward to the prospect of celebrating success at the end of ICANN55. Theresa & Akram

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by WUKnoben March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

>From a business perspective I fully agree with Michele. There should be a transparent mechanism for ICANN’s procurement process and practice which from time to time should come under a review. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 3:08 PM To: Xavier J. Calvez ; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org ; community-finance(a)icann.org ; cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org ; icann-board(a)icann.org Cc: global_leadership(a)icann.org ; Senior Management Team Subject: Re: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Xavier Thanks for sharing this information. It’s useful, though I suspect it’ll raise as many questions as it answers. One thing I did notice was in relation to the legal fees. Doing some back of the envelope calculations and noting how much ICANN generally spends on legal fees one question did come to mind, and this in relation to ICANN’s overall budgeting. How often does ICANN change law firms? Has ICANN ever changed law firms? As far as I can tell Jones Day has been doing ICANN’s legal work since ICANN’s formation Has ICANN ever put its external legal work out to any form of tender? While I know that people can argue that legal advice is not purely a numbers game, I’m also pretty sure that there are other law firms out that that would provide a similar service and potentially at a lower price. And my comments are no reflection on the quality of Jones Day’s work, but considering how much ICANN pays is legal fees per year I think it’s a question someone should ask. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "xavier.calvez(a)icann.org" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 1 March 2016 at 07:13 To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>, "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org>, "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org>, "icann-board(a)icann.org" <icann-board(a)icann.org> Cc: Senior Management Team <senior-management-team(a)icann.org>, Global Leadership <global_leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [community-finance] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015 Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project’s costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ community-finance mailing list community-finance(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Updated IANA Stewardship Transition Expenses Information as of 31 December 2015
by Xavier J. Calvez March 2, 2016

March 2, 2016

Dear Vidushi, I acknowledge receipt of your email questions and will provide a fuller response to your substantive questions which require further analysis to be adequately answered. I can not yet assess how long it will take us to answer all received questions, but I will keep everyone updated once we will have assessed the amount of analysis required and associated time to complete. For your information, I have not yet responded to or acknowledged all emails received on this topic, as I have been traveling and just landed. Irrespective, you should feel free to file any DIDP request that you deem useful, which we welcome as always. Thank you. Best, Xavier On Mar 2, 2016, at 06:56, "vidushi(a)cis-india.org<mailto:vidushi@cis-india.org>" <vidushi(a)cis-india.org<mailto:vidushi@cis-india.org>> wrote: Dear Xavier, Could you please acknowledge the receipt of my email and also indicate when I can expect to get an answer to the questions (in the thread below). Since you have responded to all other comments apart from mine, I'm wondering whether you have missed my email or will not be responding at all? In the absence of any response whatsoever, I will need to file a DIDP to get the answers I am looking for. I have also copied my colleagues from the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash. Thanks for reading this and hope to get an update soon, Vidushi. ----- On Mar 1, 2016, at 2:56 PM, <vidushi(a)cis-india.org<mailto:vidushi@cis-india.org>> wrote: Dear Xavier, Thanks for sharing this. I'm a Programme Officer with the Centre for Internet and Society, and had a few follow up questions to this report: 1. Under the expenses breakdown for Professional Services, what is the exact breakdown for "travel support including visas"? 2. Under the same head, what constitute "other miscellaneous services"? 3. Under the head of "US Government Affairs (Lobbying)" - could you provide us with details of what the lobbyists did, what was said, and who they spoke to? In case you are not in a position to provide these details, could you kindly refer me to somebody who can? 4. Under the head of "Education/Engagement/Advice", I can't help but notice that perhaps some of the most powerful lobbyists are named. In the absence of a detailed report explaining their work with and for ICANN, we cannot make an informed distinction between their work and that of the lobbyists. Please provide us with details of their work, or direct me to somebody who may be able to provide me with this information? +1 to Sean's comment about hoping we are more strategic in our engagement with professional services in WS2, and also more transparent. Thank you for this and I hope to hear from you soon, Vidushi Marda ----- On Mar 1, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Xavier J. Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below a link to the quarterly update as of 31 December 2015 of the IANA Stewardship transition projects expenses. This update provides for the project's costs from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2015 (18 months). https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Best, Xavier Xavier Calvez CFO ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1 (310) 301-5838 Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348 Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052 _______________________________________________ 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

1 0