I think Suzanne said it pretty well: “they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities”. That is really all we are talking about here. The possibility of an unanticipated need for non-operational expenses, non-recurring expenses exists and all we are recommending is that the ability to fund any such expenses should be expected. Moreover, any such expenses would be proposed in the PTI Budget approval process so it is not as if they are being added to the budget now. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne Woolf Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:56 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hi, David and Elise are indeed the detail experts on this. But to expand on Alan's point, I'd like to suggest a clarification to Greg's question. Greg says, Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. I agree with the principle, but I don't think the division is quite this clearcut. It's my understanding, at least, that consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff-- but they were undertaken as part of careful stewardship of the IANA functions by ICANN, and they had to do with the implementation of policy by IANA staff, not the development of policy. I would think they're part of executing the IANA root zone management function, even if in the past staffing and budgeting for them was not separately accounted for. I don't envision ICANN hiring new IANA staff to perform R&D. And it's a little arbitrary to decide what can be considered part of policy development and what's implementation. But for ICANN (or a hypothetical future operator) to properly carry out the IANA root zone management function, I would think they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities. A reasonable dividing line might be "What activities would need to move with the IANA root zone management implementation responsibility to a new operator, and what activities could stay with the policy development institution, in the event of a separation?" best, Suzanne On Jun 3, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only person regularly contributing that may have some insight. I don't know to what extent he pays attention to every CWG e-mail! My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, but also that it could vary heavily from year to year. It would be correct that this work is not done entirely within IANA, but I am quite sure that some will be and at times there will need to be budgets for consulting, external contract work and such. I find it fascinating that we are spending our time on conjecture when we could simply ask the people involved. Alan At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I think Item 3 needs to be clarified: 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DDT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information on how much "R&D" or innovation development goes on within the IANA Functions group (which I envision as Elise Gerich and her reports), and how much of that goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN (e.g., IETF). Perhaps this could be answered with regard to the examples given (DNSSEC and IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group was consulted at points in development and particularly with regard to deployment, but it was not my impression that these were "researched and developed" within the IANA team. Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public Comment Review Tool 1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. 2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. 4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified ((IPC) – CWG DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability process. 5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be provided: - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. Best, Grace From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>)" <dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>> Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. Chuck · Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here. · CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal. · Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. · PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified (IPC) – CWG CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating”, noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms. · Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. Thanks, Marika _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Greg, I am not sure the following can be assumed: “R&D efforts, such as " consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff" would be on the ICANN budget, but not on PTI's budget.” What if IANA staff do need to directly take the lead or provide resources? Depending on the given effort, it could involve both ICANN and PTI staff and it seems to me that PTI should control the budget for its staff and their activities. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:45 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Suzanne Woolf; Alan Greenberg; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool I don't disagree with what's just been said. However, because we are creating a separate legal entity, this affects the questions about budget which are currently pending. This is really two questions: 1. What is the budget of Post-Transition IANA, Inc.: It would be rather peculiar to say the least to have a corporate entity that did not have a discrete budget. This is the budget of PTI, Inc., not a general "IANA-related" budget. This will need to include mundane things like rent and paper-clips -- though this will probably be an exercise in allocating a percentage of certain line items of ICANN's budget to IANA (fun stuff like G&A, FF&E, HR support, etc., etc.) rather than creating a truly de novo budget for PTI, Inc. 2. What is the budget for ICANN to support IANA-related matters.: What will ICANN spend on IANA-related matters, outside of the items on the PTI, Inc. budget? This is most decidedly not the budget of PTI, Inc. (unless you do some fancy footwork, and have PTI "pay" for this through a service contract). Presumably, these are expenses that ICANN would bear even if PTI's functions were outsourced to Acme Anvils, Inc. R&D efforts, such as " consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff" would be on the ICANN budget, but not on PTI's budget. Both questions need to be answered with reasonable specificity, which has not been done before. At this juncture, it may be enough to have these on one budget. At some point (soon), they will need to be parsed out. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I think Suzanne said it pretty well: “they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities”. That is really all we are talking about here. The possibility of an unanticipated need for non-operational expenses, non-recurring expenses exists and all we are recommending is that the ability to fund any such expenses should be expected. Moreover, any such expenses would be proposed in the PTI Budget approval process so it is not as if they are being added to the budget now. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Suzanne Woolf Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:56 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hi, David and Elise are indeed the detail experts on this. But to expand on Alan's point, I'd like to suggest a clarification to Greg's question. Greg says, Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. I agree with the principle, but I don't think the division is quite this clearcut. It's my understanding, at least, that consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff-- but they were undertaken as part of careful stewardship of the IANA functions by ICANN, and they had to do with the implementation of policy by IANA staff, not the development of policy. I would think they're part of executing the IANA root zone management function, even if in the past staffing and budgeting for them was not separately accounted for. I don't envision ICANN hiring new IANA staff to perform R&D. And it's a little arbitrary to decide what can be considered part of policy development and what's implementation. But for ICANN (or a hypothetical future operator) to properly carry out the IANA root zone management function, I would think they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities. A reasonable dividing line might be "What activities would need to move with the IANA root zone management implementation responsibility to a new operator, and what activities could stay with the policy development institution, in the event of a separation?" best, Suzanne On Jun 3, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only person regularly contributing that may have some insight. I don't know to what extent he pays attention to every CWG e-mail! My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, but also that it could vary heavily from year to year. It would be correct that this work is not done entirely within IANA, but I am quite sure that some will be and at times there will need to be budgets for consulting, external contract work and such. I find it fascinating that we are spending our time on conjecture when we could simply ask the people involved. Alan At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I think Item 3 needs to be clarified: 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DDT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information on how much "R&D" or innovation development goes on within the IANA Functions group (which I envision as Elise Gerich and her reports), and how much of that goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN (e.g., IETF). Perhaps this could be answered with regard to the examples given (DNSSEC and IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group was consulted at points in development and particularly with regard to deployment, but it was not my impression that these were "researched and developed" within the IANA team. Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public Comment Review Tool 1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. 2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. 4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified ((IPC) – CWG DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability process. 5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be provided: - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. Best, Grace From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>)" <dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>> Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. Chuck · Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here. · CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal. · Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. · PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified (IPC) – CWG CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating”, noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms. · Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. Thanks, Marika _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Thanks Greg. So it sounds like we are on the same page. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:28 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Suzanne Woolf; Alan Greenberg; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Chuck, I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." If that changes, and the decision is made that IANA staff will take the lead on some or all research, then that should be supported financially, assuming it is a good business and technical decision (e.g., staff has the capacity and the skill set for the role). That would be true of any change from the status quo -- if it makes sense as a financial and operational matter, it should be supported. But at this point we need to assume that current practice will continue with R&D unless we are making recommendations otherwise (and the IANA team and ICANN support those recommendations). So it would seem that most R&D will continue to take place outside of IANA and thus outside of PTI. Clearly, any time and resources expended by PTI to support that effort needs to be budgeted for and covered -- but I don't think I was saying otherwise. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Greg, I am not sure the following can be assumed: “R&D efforts, such as " consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff" would be on the ICANN budget, but not on PTI's budget.” What if IANA staff do need to directly take the lead or provide resources? Depending on the given effort, it could involve both ICANN and PTI staff and it seems to me that PTI should control the budget for its staff and their activities. Chuck From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:45 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Suzanne Woolf; Alan Greenberg; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool I don't disagree with what's just been said. However, because we are creating a separate legal entity, this affects the questions about budget which are currently pending. This is really two questions: 1. What is the budget of Post-Transition IANA, Inc.: It would be rather peculiar to say the least to have a corporate entity that did not have a discrete budget. This is the budget of PTI, Inc., not a general "IANA-related" budget. This will need to include mundane things like rent and paper-clips -- though this will probably be an exercise in allocating a percentage of certain line items of ICANN's budget to IANA (fun stuff like G&A, FF&E, HR support, etc., etc.) rather than creating a truly de novo budget for PTI, Inc. 2. What is the budget for ICANN to support IANA-related matters.: What will ICANN spend on IANA-related matters, outside of the items on the PTI, Inc. budget? This is most decidedly not the budget of PTI, Inc. (unless you do some fancy footwork, and have PTI "pay" for this through a service contract). Presumably, these are expenses that ICANN would bear even if PTI's functions were outsourced to Acme Anvils, Inc. R&D efforts, such as " consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff" would be on the ICANN budget, but not on PTI's budget. Both questions need to be answered with reasonable specificity, which has not been done before. At this juncture, it may be enough to have these on one budget. At some point (soon), they will need to be parsed out. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I think Suzanne said it pretty well: “they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities”. That is really all we are talking about here. The possibility of an unanticipated need for non-operational expenses, non-recurring expenses exists and all we are recommending is that the ability to fund any such expenses should be expected. Moreover, any such expenses would be proposed in the PTI Budget approval process so it is not as if they are being added to the budget now. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Suzanne Woolf Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:56 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hi, David and Elise are indeed the detail experts on this. But to expand on Alan's point, I'd like to suggest a clarification to Greg's question. Greg says, Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. I agree with the principle, but I don't think the division is quite this clearcut. It's my understanding, at least, that consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff-- but they were undertaken as part of careful stewardship of the IANA functions by ICANN, and they had to do with the implementation of policy by IANA staff, not the development of policy. I would think they're part of executing the IANA root zone management function, even if in the past staffing and budgeting for them was not separately accounted for. I don't envision ICANN hiring new IANA staff to perform R&D. And it's a little arbitrary to decide what can be considered part of policy development and what's implementation. But for ICANN (or a hypothetical future operator) to properly carry out the IANA root zone management function, I would think they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities. A reasonable dividing line might be "What activities would need to move with the IANA root zone management implementation responsibility to a new operator, and what activities could stay with the policy development institution, in the event of a separation?" best, Suzanne On Jun 3, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only person regularly contributing that may have some insight. I don't know to what extent he pays attention to every CWG e-mail! My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, but also that it could vary heavily from year to year. It would be correct that this work is not done entirely within IANA, but I am quite sure that some will be and at times there will need to be budgets for consulting, external contract work and such. I find it fascinating that we are spending our time on conjecture when we could simply ask the people involved. Alan At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: I think Item 3 needs to be clarified: 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DDT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information on how much "R&D" or innovation development goes on within the IANA Functions group (which I envision as Elise Gerich and her reports), and how much of that goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN (e.g., IETF). Perhaps this could be answered with regard to the examples given (DNSSEC and IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group was consulted at points in development and particularly with regard to deployment, but it was not my impression that these were "researched and developed" within the IANA team. Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs. implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop. Greg On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public Comment Review Tool 1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. 2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. 4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified ((IPC) – CWG DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability process. 5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be provided: - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. Best, Grace From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>)" <dto@icann.org<mailto:dto@icann.org>> Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. Chuck · Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT O CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here. · CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT O CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal. · Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. · PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified (IPC) – CWG CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating”, noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms. · Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG). CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. Thanks, Marika _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

David, Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not surprised that IANA staff has been directly involved in development and innovation for the systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. The examples that were given earlier, though, were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed skepticism that these were the result of R&D carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps they were just inapposite examples. More on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). In terms of budgeting for the near future, ​it sounds like ​ appropriate funds would need to be allocated ​ for development and innovation by PTI,​ due to ​(1) ​ the plan "to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored", since "In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA staff" ​ and (2) the replacement of aging systems. ​ ​My overall takeaway then is: 1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. 2​. ICANN will also need to budget for IANA-related expenses and activities carried out by employees and resources other than the IANA staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). ​3. PTI will need to budget for development and procurement relating to replacing aging software systems and to meeting any new requirements put in place as part of the transition, and for any other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. 4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D relating to innovations relating to inputs to the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. ​Greg​ On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:

Greg,

Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now.

I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff."

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root. This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure).

There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff). On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff.

In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system.

Looking forward, the community appears to want to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored. In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff.

So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff.

Regards, -drc

Thanks James. This seems to be a pretty useful division of the PTI budget but I am not so sure I support the sub-bullets in Category 3. Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:59 AM To: Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey All, I have been following this conversation although not closely. My suggestion would be the following. In the formation documents including the contract between PTI and ICANN we specify the following budgetary forms: • Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget o This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget. o This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed) o ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o This is the standard normal business projects such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx. o Again this can be a baselined amount as its likely some internal project work will always be going on in IANA with regards to continuous imprement. • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o This can be set at a nominal figure. If a single project is forecasted at over [x]m USD then it is considered a ‘Special Project’ and could possibly go through some form of community review?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think a nominal figure is needed, A Special Project should in most cases be able to be predicted enough in advance that costs can be estimated. If not, the budget could be adjusted mid-stream as sometimes happens with budgets. Also, I don’t see any need to define a Special Project based on dollar amount except some amount that cannot be absorbed in Categories 1 & 2. o I would think that requests of this nature would be CapEx focused.[Chuck Gomes] They would likely involve more than CapEx. Not sure if that’s a workable solution to get a stable planning and forecasting solution in place while maintain some cost control ability, I have yet to finish my coffee this morning! -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:28 AM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool David, Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not surprised that IANA staff has been directly involved in development and innovation for the systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. The examples that were given earlier, though, were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed skepticism that these were the result of R&D carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps they were just inapposite examples. More on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). In terms of budgeting for the near future, ​it sounds like ​ appropriate funds would need to be allocated ​ for development and innovation by PTI,​ due to ​(1) ​ the plan "to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored", since "In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA staff" ​ and (2) the replacement of aging systems. ​ ​My overall takeaway then is: 1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. 2​. ICANN will also need to budget for IANA-related expenses and activities carried out by employees and resources other than the IANA staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). ​3. PTI will need to budget for development and procurement relating to replacing aging software systems and to meeting any new requirements put in place as part of the transition, and for any other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. 4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D relating to innovations relating to inputs to the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. ​Greg​ On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Greg, Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now. I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." I'm not sure that's accurate. Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root. This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure). There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff). On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff. In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system. Looking forward, the community appears to want to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored. In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff. So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff. Regards, -drc

James, Would defining a Special Project as anything that is not covered in categories 1 or 2 work? Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:21 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey Chuck, Yep both points are well taken. On the definition of a ‘Special Project’ I don’t mind what the definition is be it monetary or some other more business line focused definition. I think that a definition should be agreed upon though to make a good delineation between the two or it risks bringing normal IANA project work into Category 3. -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:01 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Thanks James. This seems to be a pretty useful division of the PTI budget but I am not so sure I support the sub-bullets in Category 3. Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:59 AM To: Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey All, I have been following this conversation although not closely. My suggestion would be the following. In the formation documents including the contract between PTI and ICANN we specify the following budgetary forms: • Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget o This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget. o This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed) o ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o This is the standard normal business projects such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx. o Again this can be a baselined amount as its likely some internal project work will always be going on in IANA with regards to continuous imprement. • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o This can be set at a nominal figure. If a single project is forecasted at over [x]m USD then it is considered a ‘Special Project’ and could possibly go through some form of community review?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think a nominal figure is needed, A Special Project should in most cases be able to be predicted enough in advance that costs can be estimated. If not, the budget could be adjusted mid-stream as sometimes happens with budgets. Also, I don’t see any need to define a Special Project based on dollar amount except some amount that cannot be absorbed in Categories 1 & 2. o I would think that requests of this nature would be CapEx focused.[Chuck Gomes] They would likely involve more than CapEx. Not sure if that’s a workable solution to get a stable planning and forecasting solution in place while maintain some cost control ability, I have yet to finish my coffee this morning! -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:28 AM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool David, Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not surprised that IANA staff has been directly involved in development and innovation for the systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. The examples that were given earlier, though, were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed skepticism that these were the result of R&D carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps they were just inapposite examples. More on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). In terms of budgeting for the near future, ​it sounds like ​ appropriate funds would need to be allocated ​ for development and innovation by PTI,​ due to ​(1) ​ the plan "to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored", since "In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA staff" ​ and (2) the replacement of aging systems. ​ ​My overall takeaway then is: 1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. 2​. ICANN will also need to budget for IANA-related expenses and activities carried out by employees and resources other than the IANA staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). ​3. PTI will need to budget for development and procurement relating to replacing aging software systems and to meeting any new requirements put in place as part of the transition, and for any other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. 4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D relating to innovations relating to inputs to the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. ​Greg​ On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Greg, Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now. I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." I'm not sure that's accurate. Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root. This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure). There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff). On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff. In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system. Looking forward, the community appears to want to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored. In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff. So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff. Regards, -drc

We did not James so I suspect it might not be possible to define Category 2 any further and in fact believe that leaving more flexible at this point would be the best way to go. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Chuck, If we were to do that I think we would want to make the Category 2 a little more defined. If we had an idea of the current landscape in the IANA Dept between Ops and Project work we could do that easily, did DT-O get anything like that? -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:35 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool James, Would defining a Special Project as anything that is not covered in categories 1 or 2 work? Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:21 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey Chuck, Yep both points are well taken. On the definition of a ‘Special Project’ I don’t mind what the definition is be it monetary or some other more business line focused definition. I think that a definition should be agreed upon though to make a good delineation between the two or it risks bringing normal IANA project work into Category 3. -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:01 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Thanks James. This seems to be a pretty useful division of the PTI budget but I am not so sure I support the sub-bullets in Category 3. Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:59 AM To: Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey All, I have been following this conversation although not closely. My suggestion would be the following. In the formation documents including the contract between PTI and ICANN we specify the following budgetary forms: • Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget o This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget. o This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed) o ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o This is the standard normal business projects such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx. o Again this can be a baselined amount as its likely some internal project work will always be going on in IANA with regards to continuous imprement. • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o This can be set at a nominal figure. If a single project is forecasted at over [x]m USD then it is considered a ‘Special Project’ and could possibly go through some form of community review?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think a nominal figure is needed, A Special Project should in most cases be able to be predicted enough in advance that costs can be estimated. If not, the budget could be adjusted mid-stream as sometimes happens with budgets. Also, I don’t see any need to define a Special Project based on dollar amount except some amount that cannot be absorbed in Categories 1 & 2. o I would think that requests of this nature would be CapEx focused.[Chuck Gomes] They would likely involve more than CapEx. Not sure if that’s a workable solution to get a stable planning and forecasting solution in place while maintain some cost control ability, I have yet to finish my coffee this morning! -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:28 AM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool David, Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not surprised that IANA staff has been directly involved in development and innovation for the systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. The examples that were given earlier, though, were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed skepticism that these were the result of R&D carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps they were just inapposite examples. More on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). In terms of budgeting for the near future, ​it sounds like ​ appropriate funds would need to be allocated ​ for development and innovation by PTI,​ due to ​(1) ​ the plan "to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored", since "In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA staff" ​ and (2) the replacement of aging systems. ​ ​My overall takeaway then is: 1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. 2​. ICANN will also need to budget for IANA-related expenses and activities carried out by employees and resources other than the IANA staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). ​3. PTI will need to budget for development and procurement relating to replacing aging software systems and to meeting any new requirements put in place as part of the transition, and for any other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. 4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D relating to innovations relating to inputs to the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. ​Greg​ On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Greg, Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now. I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." I'm not sure that's accurate. Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root. This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure). There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff). On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff. In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system. Looking forward, the community appears to want to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored. In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff. So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff. Regards, -drc

That works for me James. It seems to me that this level of detail does not need to be put in the final proposal for next week but instead should be included in the implementation work that will follow after approval and before transition. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 10:02 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Chuck, Ok that’s fine, how would the below sound? • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o These are the standard business projects associated with the running, maintaining and continuous improvement of the IANA functions. Such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o All projects not captured in Category 1 or 2. IANA Special projects may be subject to a community review process. -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:53 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool We did not James so I suspect it might not be possible to define Category 2 any further and in fact believe that leaving more flexible at this point would be the best way to go. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:41 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Chuck, If we were to do that I think we would want to make the Category 2 a little more defined. If we had an idea of the current landscape in the IANA Dept between Ops and Project work we could do that easily, did DT-O get anything like that? -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:35 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool James, Would defining a Special Project as anything that is not covered in categories 1 or 2 work? Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 7:21 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey Chuck, Yep both points are well taken. On the definition of a ‘Special Project’ I don’t mind what the definition is be it monetary or some other more business line focused definition. I think that a definition should be agreed upon though to make a good delineation between the two or it risks bringing normal IANA project work into Category 3. -James From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:01 PM To: James Gannon; Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Thanks James. This seems to be a pretty useful division of the PTI budget but I am not so sure I support the sub-bullets in Category 3. Please see my comments below. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:59 AM To: Greg Shatan; David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Hey All, I have been following this conversation although not closely. My suggestion would be the following. In the formation documents including the contract between PTI and ICANN we specify the following budgetary forms: • Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget o This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget. o This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed) o ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI • Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget o This is the standard normal business projects such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx. o Again this can be a baselined amount as its likely some internal project work will always be going on in IANA with regards to continuous imprement. • Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget o This can be set at a nominal figure. If a single project is forecasted at over [x]m USD then it is considered a ‘Special Project’ and could possibly go through some form of community review?[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think a nominal figure is needed, A Special Project should in most cases be able to be predicted enough in advance that costs can be estimated. If not, the budget could be adjusted mid-stream as sometimes happens with budgets. Also, I don’t see any need to define a Special Project based on dollar amount except some amount that cannot be absorbed in Categories 1 & 2. o I would think that requests of this nature would be CapEx focused.[Chuck Gomes] They would likely involve more than CapEx. Not sure if that’s a workable solution to get a stable planning and forecasting solution in place while maintain some cost control ability, I have yet to finish my coffee this morning! -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:28 AM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool David, Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not surprised that IANA staff has been directly involved in development and innovation for the systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense. The examples that were given earlier, though, were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed skepticism that these were the result of R&D carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps they were just inapposite examples. More on-target examples, such as the ones you gave, might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all). In terms of budgeting for the near future, ​it sounds like ​ appropriate funds would need to be allocated ​ for development and innovation by PTI,​ due to ​(1) ​ the plan "to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored", since "In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA staff" ​ and (2) the replacement of aging systems. ​ ​My overall takeaway then is: 1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget. 2​. ICANN will also need to budget for IANA-related expenses and activities carried out by employees and resources other than the IANA staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent"). ​3. PTI will need to budget for development and procurement relating to replacing aging software systems and to meeting any new requirements put in place as part of the transition, and for any other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment. 4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D relating to innovations relating to inputs to the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff. ​Greg​ On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Greg, Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now. I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." I'm not sure that's accurate. Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root. This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure). There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff). On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff. In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system. Looking forward, the community appears to want to impose a vast array of new service level requirements for the IANA functions (and not just naming-related functions) that will need to be monitored. In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff. So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff. Regards, -drc

On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:

Greg,

Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now.

I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff."

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Thanks David for the clarification, and I think I see where we diverged— besides that you’re more in touch with the day-to-day operations than I am. Apologies to all for any confusion from what I said. I think it depends on what one considers “IANA”— staff involved in the day-to-day tasks covered by the SLAs, DNS operations (which has at least sometimes been considered administratively separate from “IANA”, contractors hired to look into specifics of various activities to be undertaken by IANA staff, etc. But rather than push further into those details here, I’ll happily concede David’s clarifications, as IMHO they illustrate that our definitions may be ambiguous and need to be clarified.

In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system.

This is an excellent example of the kind of functionality that PTI needs to be able to support, whether in-house or out-sourced. thanks, Suzanne

Greg with regards to shared services the attached might be helpful at a high level, this was provided to DT-O during the process. -James From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 6:31 PM To: Suzanne Woolf Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool Suzanne, Thanks for your email. I think you raise an important point: I think it depends on what one considers “IANA”— staff involved in the day-to-day tasks covered by the SLAs, DNS operations (which has at least sometimes been considered administratively separate from “IANA”, contractors hired to look into specifics of various activities to be undertaken by IANA staff, etc. ​"What one considers "IANA""​ goes beyond the budget process -- indeed, if we sort out what one considers "IANA," the issue of which budget item goes where pretty much gets solved. I think the inquiry has to be a little bit different -- not "what does one consider "IANA"" but rather "What (and who) will go into PTI"? I've worked on more than a few divestitures, spin-outs, reorganizations, etc., and dividing people, things, IP, contracts, etc., is is never quite as easy as one thinks (which is not to say it's complex). To take your example, will "DNS operations" be moved to PTI? Are there projects that benefit or relate to IANA that are carried out outside of the team that is moving (virtually) to PTI? Are there shared assets or services? There are certainly enterprise and back-office services that ICANN provides to the IANA staff and operations; these can be provided under a services agreement of some sort. I agree that we don't need to delve into this now. But soon enough, we'll need to pull out the sorting hat and we will see what and who goes where (and maybe to more than one place).... Greg ​ On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com<mailto:suzworldwide@gmail.com>> wrote: On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:58 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: Greg, Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now. I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff." I'm not sure that's accurate. Thanks David for the clarification, and I think I see where we diverged— besides that you’re more in touch with the day-to-day operations than I am. Apologies to all for any confusion from what I said. I think it depends on what one considers “IANA”— staff involved in the day-to-day tasks covered by the SLAs, DNS operations (which has at least sometimes been considered administratively separate from “IANA”, contractors hired to look into specifics of various activities to be undertaken by IANA staff, etc. But rather than push further into those details here, I’ll happily concede David’s clarifications, as IMHO they illustrate that our definitions may be ambiguous and need to be clarified. In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system. This is an excellent example of the kind of functionality that PTI needs to be able to support, whether in-house or out-sourced. thanks, Suzanne