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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 13:32:19 UTC 2015

I am forwarding this email to the Accountability list, since it is relevant
to the CCWG's work.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
Date: Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
Budget - pls comment
To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>, "Gomes, Chuck" <
cgomes at verisign.com>, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>,
cwg-stewardship at icann.org

Hi Jordan,

Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to
the CCWG.

It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget in
order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded in
order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions is
dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the
budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure
to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are
interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both
issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to
be taken care of in WS1.

Best regards,

Jonathan and Lise

*Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle
*Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34
*Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget
- pls comment

I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one.  I would certainly
be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of
unrelated issues within ICANN.  That does not mean that the IANA budget in
ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions
operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I
understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs.  So
long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly
identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by

However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for
challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall.  Why should there
be?  Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would
actually see a higher threshold as more logical.  In any case, maintaining
funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment
as justification for allowing an increase.  Is this perhaps a decision for
the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA
functions operation)?


*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck

*Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09
*To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
Budget - pls comment

My personal thoughts are inserted below.


*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter
*Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM
*To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
*Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget
- pls comment

All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful /



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015
Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org

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.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem if the
   IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the IANA
   costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget.
   - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget
   as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is correct. If any
   compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make sense
   for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA 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.*[Chuck
   Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further.  A low threshold might
   make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability of the
   services.  Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by some
   other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so that
   services are not degraded and security is maintained.
   - 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.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a true
   statement.  The process has been improved greatly so that community input
   is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget
   before the Board acts on it.  But the Board still doesn’t act on it until
   late June, just before the new fiscal year starts.  I assume the veto
   wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days
   for resolution.  Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto
   process to take place.
   - 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.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would be a step
   in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project needed
   new funding?

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



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
Skype: jordancarter

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

Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity

CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150723/bdaf3b44/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list