Subject: PCST
From: Thomas Rickert <[email-masked]>
To: Bernard Turcotte <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lise Fuhr <[email-masked]>, Jonathan Robinson <[email-masked]>, Mathieu Weill <[email-masked]>,León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:51:10 +0000

Dear Bernie,

Thank you for the report. Following receipt, we have discussed it and would like to share a few observations and questions for further discussion with you. Accordingly, please consider the following:

- The decision to proceed with the PCST and the mechanics to deploy it was made with the SO/AC leadership. While it seems to us to be appropriate to have this discussion and make this decision with the chartering organizations, it is lacking a mandate from the CCWG Accountability. We note that we have neither been involved in nor informed of the discussions with the SO/AC that lead to the final decision. We kindly ask for more information on the discussions following the initial calls we had on the subject and the rationale for the decision that was taken.

- We are not aware of any documents that describe the way forward and define the mechanisms that could be used by the co-chairs to exercise cost control.

- The report provided offers a lot of information, but is unclear and partially ambiguous in terms of who was responsible for certain budget decisions and where such budget items are allocated. For example; the report might be read to say that lobbying expenses were related to the work of the CCWG.  In fact the co-chairs had neither control or knowledge of what experts were hired and what their purpose was, let alone what the incurred cost was.

- We understand that the discussion is intended to be forward-looking and we are fully in agreement with this. However, if that is to be the case, surely the report should simply state what historical expenses have been incurred and not seek to make allocations to the CWG / CCWG or otherwise. Should such allocation be desired, we would need much more detailed information to be able to validate the accuracy of the report.

- We suggest an ongoing dialogue with PCST about costs and a collaboration to flesh out mechanisms with the chartering organizations, the Board and ICANN staff in order to define procedures for cost control, based on clear areas of responsibility of the parties involved. Budget oversight and cost control might be understood as shared accountability which is not appropriate when many cases in the current report refer to areas where we had no control or part in initiating such costs.

We are looking forward to discussing this with you further. At the same time we think it important for us to share information on the debate with our respective groups. Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding sharing the report. Should you wish to produce an updated version based on the input received, we would appreciate an indication of the time required for that.

Thanks and kind regards,

Lise, Jonathan, Mathieu, León and Thomas