Documents for review by CWG - budget and separation 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 documents in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powers. 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 21.1.2016. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirements. Best regards, Lise
Lise, In the conclusions at the beginning of the 2nd reading document, the referenced page and paragraph numbers don't seem to be accurate. As just one example, there is a reference to paragraph 22 on page 6; paragraph 22 is on page 7 and it is simply the title of a section. This makes it much more difficult to correlate the conclusions to the redlined text in Annex 4. It would help a lot of the page and paragraph references were accurate, especially since this is such a fast moving process. Am I correct in assuming that the redlined changes made to Annex 4 show all the changes made to it based on the conclusions at the beginning? I don't know if staff has the time to do it, but it would be really helpful to have a table that briefly shows the concerns of the CWG Stewardship for a given area mapped to the changes made after the second reading with references to the page and paragraph numbers where the changes were made. In the meantime, I will try to go through all the redlined edits in Annex 4 and attempt to confirm that CWG Stewardship needs are met. 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 separation 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 documents in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powers. 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 21.1.2016. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirements. Best regards, Lise
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 separation 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 documents in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powers. 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 21.1.2016. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirements. Best regards, Lise
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 (agreement) with the operational community. That work, I think, has to be done at the PTI-RySG-ccNSO level. The affiliate - or any future operator, should there be separation - should be the focal point 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 appears in the ICANN budget, the PTI budget really should be sacrosanct 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 requires some work on the process for budget review and notes the role of the operational communities. Hope this helps Martin From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 18 January 2016 16:27 To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; 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-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Documents for review by CWG - budget and separation 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 documents in relation to our requirements regarding budget and separation powers. 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 21.1.2016. You only need to read and comment on the parts that relates to our requirements. Best regards, Lise
Hi, First, to be clear, I think the text the CCWG is now working with is probably ok. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:30:07PM +0000, Martin Boyle wrote:
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 (agreement) with the operational community.
I think we need to be pretty careful in how we speak. That says "IANA functions" (plural) but "operational community" (singular). I think it highlights a tension. There are really in effect two kinds of budget. One is the budget for the IANA functions for the names community. I think this is the thing that the CWG has been interested in. To achieve that and to make the separation goal possible, the PTI is created. We've been assuming, I think, that ICANN will just transfer all IANA functions there, and that therefore there will be a clear "IANA budget". I think this is the right assumption and I think ICANN would be crazy to do otherwise. But it is at least logically possible that ICANN will only transfer money for the names function out of the ICANN budget to PTI, and that the numbers and parameters functions will be broken out of the "IANA budget" as we've been talking about it. The other OCs don't have to care about that, because their agreements are apparently going to remain with ICANN and not with PTI. So the details of the budget are not those OCs' concern, and they've said that they prefer to rely on their MoUs. Again, probably the right answer but it creates a wrinkle in exactly how the budgets can be teased apart.
When it appears in the ICANN budget, the PTI budget really should be sacrosanct except for quite clear and fairly limited grounds that an IANA budget could be vetoed.
It has always bothered me that, at bottom, there's no real way to ensure this. It will always be possible for the wider ICANN community to dispute the budget or shut it down in some way -- particularly, in a way uncomfortable to non-names OCs. I think the answer to that has ever been and remains that the OCs have a provider/customer relationship to the IFO, and if the terms have to be renegotiated then it's like any other negotiation. But we probably best keep that in mind as we discuss this. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Gomes, Chuck -
Lise Fuhr -
Martin Boyle