[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Sat Jul 18 15:09:54 UTC 2015

Hi all

As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate

The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so that it can do its job.

In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts:
The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the ICANN budget.
The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN budget.
The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.
If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the relevant financial year.
The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year, funding would continue at the same level.
Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget. So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN budget or whether it is separate.

I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA Budget review mentioned by the CWG.

Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different threshold?


1.              ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review.

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150718/7817c642/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150718/7817c642/signature.asc>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list