Apologies if my tone came across too strong, just at a basic level I think decisions like this meet the principles and spirit of our proposal, and I don’t agree with coming back and reopening principles that were agreed upon, such as the direct customers of IANA being recognised as having a special voice at times. We are coming into the final straight and I for one am missing the times back last year when we had time to do our day jobs =) Apologies if that came across as some slightly harsh language during midnight catchups on ICANN emails =) -jg From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday 19 April 2016 at 3:10 a.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>, Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed Hi, I like to state a few comments so we get some few things straight: 1. Nobody has time to waste (certainly I don't) and I would appreciate if we could stop addressing people's comments in that manner. It's not necessarily nice/friendly IMO. 2. Nobody has the intention of changing what is in the CWG final proposal(certainly I don't) so again we should stop relating comments to that. 3. The particular verbatim text "as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group, the IAB and RIRs" is no where on our proposal(I am open to hearing references if otherwise). 4. What is being discussed is the bylaw draft which attempts to interpret our proposal and I think it's in order to express views on them so long as it's not outside of our proposal scope. 5. The point that was raised was to avoid unnecessary repetition and avoid a "double dip scenario" which is why I personally think would have been neater to just refer to GNSO but nothing stop others from giving their opinions/rationale on why that may/should not be the case. 6. Finally, which is not necessarily directly related to the subject matter, I think we are obviously working with a fairly broken structure which some of us will just have to live with. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 18 Apr 2016 16:59, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Which is why during extensive discussions over months of CWG work we agreed on what we have in the proposal. I really don’t think any of us have time to be revisiting things like this again. We had decided on principles like this before so as long as its in the spirit and reflects the substance of our proposal (Which for the record I feel it is) I don’t think we need to spend too much energy on this. -jg From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Monday 18 April 2016 at 10:43 p.m. To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed But registries are the direct consumers of IANA functions folks, both g’s and cc’s. I do not think it is “double counting” to specifically call out registries. The ccNSO IS an SO/AC in its own right, but the Registry Stakeholder Group is not. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile:+1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>/neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: You are mistaken. Your statements belittle the remainder of the GNSO and denigrate the credibility of the GNSO as a multistakeholder organization. If i understand CW's intent i think your comment above may have indeed been what he was trying to avoid (unfortunately). The proposed text says: "...Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees[, as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group..." The point then is since Registries stakeholder group is part of GNSO there is no need to repeat registries stakeholder group (section highlighted in yellow) Regards Which may have been your intent. On the other hand, there may be at least a grain of truth, unfortunately, in your statements. A discussion of the extent to which your statements are true would be quite interesting, but off-topic here (on-topic, however, for CCWG-Accountability WS2, SO/AC Accountability; and possibly would have been on-topic for the misbegotten "GNSO Review"). Greg Shatan IPC President (but writing in my personal capacity) On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good evening: May I suggest that there seems to be an element of duplication, if not double counting in this proposal. The Registries Stakeholder Group is the principal element of the GNSO. I do not see the point of consulting with RSG as well as GNSO. It amounts to the same thing, if I am not mistaken. Regards CW On 18 Apr 2016, at 16:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote: All, Please see below for a further bylaws point raised via the client committee. We have discussed it on list in the client committee and Lise & myself have discussed in person. It is our view to accept the edit proposed below i.e. “to ensure performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future is not interrupted due to lack of funding” And to retain the highlighted language in square brackets i.e. consult with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees[, as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group, the IAB and RIRs,] Please highlight any concerns with this and/or flag if this will be further considered by DT-O. Thank-you, Lise & Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@<mailto:sflanagan@>sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sidley.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=MO...>] Sent: 18 April 2016 01:33 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>> Subject: [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed Dear All, ICANN Legal is proposing the following edits to Sections 22.4 and 22.5 and Annex F. Can DT-O confirm these edits are acceptable or identify any concerns? We thought #1 and #2 looked ok; however, we understand “uninterrupted” was discussed by DT-O. ICANN Legal explained their concern with “uninterrupted” below: “Uninterrupted could be read to signal a technical SLA that the minute to minute (or second to second) performance of IANA functions will always be “uninterrupted”. While that is clearly what our team strives for (and we do not have complaints as far as I’m aware of regarding our performance levels), we should avoid technical SLA language to move to what we understood the intention to be, that there not be gaps in funding that put the fact of performance of the IANA functions at risk. Then whatever technical agreements there are on how that service will be delivered should be housed elsewhere.” One alternative that should meet the concern raised by ICANN Legal, while also covering the concept of no interruptions is below: “to ensure performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future is not interrupted due to lack of funding” With respect to #3, Sidley proposed language to try and capture the DT-O request. ICANN Legal’s edits are reflected as a redline to our proposed language. Please advise if this captures the concept being requested by DT-O, which is also below. Also, is the bracketed language necessary? Thanks, Sharon PROPOSED EDITS TO 22.4, 22.5 AND ANNEX F 1. ICANN Legal Proposed Edits to Section 22.4(f): “To maintain ongoing operational excellence and financial stability of the IANA functions (so long as they are performed by ICANN or pursuant to contract with ICANN) and PTI, ICANN shall be required to plan for and allocate funds to ICANN’s performance of the IANA functions and to PTI, as applicable, that are sufficient to cover the future expenses and contingencies to ensure uninterruptedcontinuous performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future.” 2. ICANN Legal Proposed Edits to Annex F(1)(f) “Notwithstanding any other principle listed above, prevents ICANN, in its responsibility to fund the operations of the IANA functions, from initiating activities that areremain subject to community consideration (or for which that community consultation has not concluded) with respect to the applicable IANA Budget, including without limitation, preventing implementation of any contentious expendituresexpenditure or undertaking any contentiousactionsaction that werewas the subject of the IANA Budget that was rejected by the EC andthat triggered the need for the Caretaker IANA Budget.” 3. Current Draft Language – Section 22.4(b)(i): Separately and in addition to the general ICANN planning process, ICANN shall require PTI shallto prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed annual operating plan and budget for PTI’s performance of the IANA functions for the next fiscal year (“PTI Budget”). ICANN shall require PTI shalltoconsult with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees[, as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group, the IAB and RIRs,] during the PTI Budget development process, and shall seek public comment on the draft PTI Budget prior to approval of the PTI Budget by PTI. TheICANN shall require PTI to submit the PTI Budget shall be submitted to ICANN as an input prior to and for the purpose of being included in the proposed Operating Plan (as defined in Section 22.5(a)) and ICANN Budget. This draft language attempts to capture this language in the attached DT-O document, modified to align with comparable language relating to the ICANN Budget: “Separately and in addition to the general ICANN planning process, PTI shall prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions for the upcoming planning cycle. Such proposed operating plan and budget shall provide appropriate information to enable a consultation process allowing for broad community engagement and input, including appropriate steps for addressing such community input. The proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions, resulting from such process, shall be submitted to ICANN as input prior to and for the purpose of being included in the proposed ICANN operating plan and budget, itself then subject to a broad consultation process, including appropriate steps for addressing community input.” **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** <Untitled attachment 00020.txt>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=IijSQzwos6yibxm61s4GX7VZuJthfE7GI1cAoqeeFFM&e=> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=X0yHPMdi3LhuDKyJojYq3gCGLtUi2Zv4p0g6rqtQeUI&e=>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!