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; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:51:20 +0200 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; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:51:19 +0200 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; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:51:19 +0200 Received: from vwp0481.webpack.hosteurope.de (ITCE-ASSP01.itce.cloud [192.168.60.200]) by exchange.itce.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4917B1E5A8E for ; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:49:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vwp0481.webpack.hosteurope.de ([87.230.61.232] helo=vwp0481.webpack.hosteurope.de) by ASSP.nospam with SMTP (2.5.1); 30 May 2016 16:49:07 +0200 Received: from pd95cb1b7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.92.177.183] helo=mail.anwaelte.de); authenticated by vwp0481.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1b7OXF-0006MQ-Aq; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:51:17 +0200 Received: from [172.20.10.3] (ip-109-44-3-34.web.vodafone.de [109.44.3.34]) by mail.anwaelte.de with ESMTPSA (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256) ; Mon, 30 May 2016 16:53:36 +0200 From: Thomas Rickert To: Bernard Turcotte CC: Lise Fuhr , Jonathan Robinson , Mathieu Weill , =?utf-8?B?TGXDs24gRmVsaXBlIFPDoW5jaGV6IEFtYsOtYQ==?= Subject: PCST Thread-Topic: PCST Thread-Index: AQHRuoK6n2BbNtg8DUGsmqcBnPlxhg== Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:51:10 +0000 Message-ID: <99ED0C1B-803D-4730-BA31-EF8E84268D0E@rickert.net> Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: None X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: rickert.net X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: None (ITCE-MAIL01.itce.cloud: thomas@rickert.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_582F1615-4100-4ED2-ACE6-23136FF0482E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 --Apple-Mail=_582F1615-4100-4ED2-ACE6-23136FF0482E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CDB4804C-0BB5-4B2E-9A91-9A95C1E00DA1" --Apple-Mail=_CDB4804C-0BB5-4B2E-9A91-9A95C1E00DA1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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, Le=C3=B3n and Thomas --Apple-Mail=_CDB4804C-0BB5-4B2E-9A91-9A95C1E00DA1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

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, Le=C3=B3n and Thomas

= --Apple-Mail=_CDB4804C-0BB5-4B2E-9A91-9A95C1E00DA1-- --Apple-Mail=_582F1615-4100-4ED2-ACE6-23136FF0482E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJXTFNeAAoJECGcZEVUvnjeGdEIAJ3egSYpus0AH06DHl9BL/Ka CWiipr1JmG8qDzyov3PIUW4yMdZ1lvIk/1y2aOhdATZlKMenBXuSKunw7cYMXikJ GQzt0WExg6zpw2p2pYWrNjCZs55fSrQhAIfe/FPyOdlo/BsyfpCTNFjRZrwINRbj KBM1aA2nx+/Pb26FwH73WkLMD1svul9ip5BvING4eb4uraOZ/GWqjjOG/AbiSGfg +ki+sIuyg0tM2qdZrz0m2rwg2MLWF/ZYltWUst6Ne3lkTq0y9rzqG14A1MYVM8Q7 FYSZhFu9uaiVGmMFEsepJ/XPjRsTJbA6YKLgD5wje0IvvBd2WZhQVPHkZL5oIQA= =kVop -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_582F1615-4100-4ED2-ACE6-23136FF0482E--