[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jul 24 21:25:06 UTC 2015
I did study the following which seems much better than uit was since the
IANA Budget is now separated
*"The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the
*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.*
LOWER MEANS WHAT LEVEL ?
*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*"
Pls kindly clarify the meaning of " LOWER"
2015-07-24 15:20 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Thank you, this is helpful
> But what I actually want to say is that the 'basic' RZM operations
> must not become subject to a veto (as under current discussion
> within the CCWG) of an ICANN budget.
> I.e. there are IANA functions that may be used as leverage against
> ICANN and there are functions that may not.
> On 2015-07-24 13:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > On 24 Jul 2015, at 13:17, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> >> If the Master Root (currently the A Root, me thinks) were to
> >> switch to ICANN it must also have an ironclad and veto proof
> >> budget for running expenses due to Safety and Stability reasons.
> > Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but we must be correct on how the
> > root zone management system works.
> > The RZM is managed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA together. Two
> > agreements cover it. This will change as one of them is going
> > away. Root server operators (including Verisign, running A-root)
> > is fetching the root zone from whatever service the RZM is
> > providing accordingly.
> > Questions regarding potential implications on the RZM during the
> > transition, is covered by for example the SSAC documents published
> > lately. Specifically SAC-067, SAC-068, SAC-069, SAC-071 and
> > SAC-072.
> > What I think you say is that IF it is the case that the RZM
> > arrangement is changing so that the operational costs for PTI
> > increases there must be enough head room in the budget (and future
> > budgets) to accommodate for it.
> > Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod
> - --
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421 \ /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community