All, Please be aware of the recent work that has been done in collaboration between CWG Stewardship / CCWG Accountability regarding the “IANA Budget”. It seems to be comprehensive and address the concern it was intended to deal with. One option is to create a checkpoint during the implementation in order to ensure the requirements (of the CWG) are being met in the actiual implementation. If you do have any further input or thoughts, please provide ASAP as this will be discussed and possibly finalised at today’s meeting of the CCWG Accountability (19h00 UTC, 26 January 2016). Thank-you. Jonathan From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: 26 January 2016 00:21 To: fuhr@etno.eu; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>; ACCT-Staff <acct-staff@icann.org> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: IANA Budget and CCWG-Accountability proposal - CWG-Stewardship changes Hi all Please find attached a marked up version of Recommendation 4 on the IANA and ICANN Budget veto power. This document includes tracked changes from Jordan Carter, WP1 Rapporteur in the CCWG. The changes are intended to take into account feedback from the CWG-Stewardship's Chuck Gomes, forwarded to us by the CWG Co-Chairs. Jonathan Zuck and I as leads on budget discussions were asked to talk through the feedback and agree what should happen next. I met with Jonathan and Chuck this morning to talk through the written feedback from Chuck and we're all happy that the proposed changes attached are fit for purpose. The CWG-Stewardship's feedback boiled down to wanting more clarity about the IANA Functions Operator's budget process. I have tried in the tracked changes to clarify what a caretaker budget feels like (as the CWG sought some more detail), and emphasise that the current quite-good consultation processes for all Budget creation will be put in the bylaws (clarifying that this will also apply to the IANA Budget). In respect of further detail about timing of the IANA Functions Budget, I am not comfortable with the CCWG-Accountability defining this. We in the CCWG have done our job in creating a structure for accountability in respect of the IANA Budget. I believe it is up to the CWG-Stewardship, either through its Design Teams approach or in the implementation project, to go any further in defining detail about the planning process (how a Budget is created, the timing of approval, etc). It isn't the CCWG's area of expertise or responsibility. If there are concerns about ensuring that such planning was taken into account, we could explore the concept of a reverse conditionality -- we could state in our report that our requirements are met only when CWG-Stewardship's work here is completed to its satisfaction. This item is on the agenda for CCWG-Accountability on Tuesday between 19h and 22h. Happy to expand or discuss. Happy also for this message to be forwarded to the CWG or to the CCWG by the relevant co-chairs or staff, or anyone else who feels so inclined! best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet