Received: from ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud (192.168.60.25) by ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud (192.168.60.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25 via Mailbox Transport; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:29:51 +0100 Received: from ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud (192.168.60.25) by ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud (192.168.60.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:29:51 +0100 Received: from exchange.itce.be (192.168.60.200) by ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud (192.168.60.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1044.25 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:29:44 +0100 Received: from mx1.nominet.org.uk (ITCE-ASSP01.itce.cloud [192.168.60.200]) by exchange.itce.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27264480FC1 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:30:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.242.48] helo=mx1.nominet.org.uk) by ASSP.nospam with SMTP (2.4.7); 19 Jan 2016 18:30:12 +0100 Received: from wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([213.248.197.145]) by mx1.nominet.org.uk with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2016 17:30:08 +0000 Received: from WDS-EXC1.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:30:08 +0000 From: Martin Boyle To: "Gomes, Chuck" , Lise Fuhr , "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" CC: ACCT-Staff , Thomas Rickert , "alice.jansen@icann.org" Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and separation power Thread-Topic: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and separation power Thread-Index: AQHRUt8AlWFSqeEWR0yF0a8aH/5X1g== Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:30:07 +0000 Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81C2D948@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <5E1D06CA-9854-4314-98EA-8E096388B66C@icann.org> <7556f512599740ca9e3ba1a8aee3dda9@ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud>, <7D203287-4A82-441C-B5FA-88EFCC52A597@etno.eu> <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A1B728F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E4A1B728F@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: None X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: nominet.uk X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: None (ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud: Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81C2D948wdsexc1oknanomi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81C2D948wdsexc1oknanomi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lise, I tend to agree with Chuck's comments and proposed drafting. For me the biggest problem is in the process for developing the IANA budget= and where responsibility for the development of the budget lies. It is very much an operational budget, so I see no particular reason why it= would not be established by the IANA functions operator in discussion (agr= eement) with the operational community. That work, I think, has to be done= at the PTI-RySG-ccNSO level. The affiliate - or any future operator, shou= ld there be separation - should be the focal point for agreement on what ne= eds to be done and how (for example, how challenging the service level agre= ement is, what new developments need to be factored in...?) When it appears in the ICANN budget, the PTI budget really should be sacros= anct except for quite clear and fairly limited grounds that an IANA budget = could be vetoed. In particular the IANA budget veto should not be used for= reasons other than operational circumstances directly associated with the = IANA service. This seems to be accepted in paragraphs 20 & 21, which requi= res some work on the process for budget review and notes the role of the op= erational communities. Hope this helps Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@ica= nn.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 18 January 2016 16:27 To: Lise Fuhr ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: ACCT-Staff ; Thomas Rickert ;= alice.jansen@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and sep= aration power Lise, My feedback is attached. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:20 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; alice.jansen@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and separat= ion power Dear CWG, As discussed on our call last Tuesday we have to review the documents from = CCWG on the list between our calls. Attached in this email are the CCWG doc= uments in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powe= rs. Please review and comment on the list by Tuesday 19.1.2016 23.59 UTC. Jonathan and I will gather the comments and forward them to CCWG. Please be= aware that the separation powers will have a second reading on the 21.1.20= 16. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirem= ents. Best regards, Lise --_000_4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81C2D948wdsexc1oknanomi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <49641A184E9F4642B1675F671823D400@itce.cloud> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Lise,<= /o:p>

I tend to agre= e with Chuck’s comments and proposed drafting.

For me the big= gest problem is in the process for developing the IANA budget and where res= ponsibility for the development of the budget lies.

It is very muc= h an operational budget, so I see no particular reason why it would not be = established by the IANA functions operator in discussion (agreement) with the operational community. That work, I thi= nk, has to be done at the PTI-RySG-ccNSO level. The affiliate – or an= y future operator, should there be separation – should be the focal p= oint for agreement on what needs to be done and how (for example, how challenging the service level agreement is, what= new developments need to be factored in…?)

When it appear= s in the ICANN budget, the PTI budget really should be sacrosanct except fo= r quite clear and fairly limited grounds that an IANA budget could be vetoed. In particular the IANA budget veto sh= ould not be used for reasons other than operational circumstances directly = associated with the IANA service. This seems to be accepted in paragraphs 2= 0 & 21, which requires some work on the process for budget review and notes the role of the operational com= munities.

Hope this help= s

Martin

From: cwg-stew= ardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 18 January 2016 16:27
To: Lise Fuhr ; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Cc: ACCT-Staff ; Thomas Rickert ; alice.jansen@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget = and separation power

Lise,

My feedback is attached.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounce= s@icann.org [mailt= o:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:20 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@ica= nn.org
Cc: Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; alice.jansen@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and = separation power

Dear CWG,

As discussed on our call last T= uesday we have to review the documents from CCWG on the list between our ca= lls. Attached in this email are the CCWG documents in relation to our requi= rements regarding budget and separation powers. Please review and comment on the list by Tuesday 19.1.2016 23.59 U= TC.

Jonathan and I will gather the = comments and forward them to CCWG. Please be aware that the separation powe= rs will have a second reading on the 21.1.2016.

You only need to read and comme= nt on the parts that relates to our requirements.

Best regards,=

Lise

--_000_4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81C2D948wdsexc1oknanomi_--