I think Item 3 needs to be clarified: *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. 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> 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> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto@icann.org)" <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 <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM *To:* 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Dear all, I missed Chuck¹s edits in the last version I sent. Here below are the corrected 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 ICANN would be required to 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 given to ICANN at least 9 months in advance of the start of the applicable fiscal year. 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, and an additional year kept for funding PTI only should be kept in 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> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto@icann.org)" <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 ³gold plating², 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] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM To: 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