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

[Seun Ojedeji]

+1 but I don't think "anyhow it's handled" would be sufficient to avoid
negative impact. So I will be interested in knowing how it will handled.

Regards

Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Jul 2015 1:27 pm, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  However it is handled, I’d like to think that we can all agree that any
> veto of the ICANN budget should definitely not have any negative impact on
> sufficient ongoing funding of PTI/IANA.  I think that this is the key point
> I take from Martin’s message.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 6:51 AM
> *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> My thinking in Paris and the debate that I had with Bruce Tonkin on the
> IANA budget was largely consistent with Martins email below so I would
> support this position.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 11:10 AM
> *To:* Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> Thanks Jordan:  I found your interpretation quite challenging and so it
> has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way budget vetoes
> might work.
>
>
>
> My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a non-IANA
> functions operation issue should not affect the IANA functions operator’s
> budget.  In other words, this part of the ICANN budget needs to be
> ring-fenced.  There is also the subsidiary problem of a planned investment
> in the IANA functions operation being stopped or slowed because of a
> squabble about ICANN’s overall finances.
>
>
>
> Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity in veto
> powers is quite important and I’d agree with that:  it would be an open
> door to using community budget vetoes for very specific budget lines
> (although I could imagine that that is always going to be a danger in this
> sort of power).
>
>
>
> Essentially, for me there are two separate lines:
>
>
>
> 1.       The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from ICANN
> to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the first case, but
> it might be to an independent contractor in due course, should there be
> full separation at some stage).  There is an *obligation* on ICANN to
> fund this.
>
>
>
> 2.       The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget line.
>
>
>
> In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that allowed a
> problem in 2. to freeze the IANA budget.  Whether an issue in 1. led to a
> more general veto for 1. & 2. concerns me less, although I would not really
> like to see horse-trading of the IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the
> ICANN budget – hence my preference would be strongly for the *alternative
> proposal*.
>
>
>
> If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in terms of the
> operator, we have:
>
>
>
> a.       The PTI budget.  Could scrutiny and veto by the operational
> communities be at this level?  Either way (whether direct with the PTI or
> with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge this budget.
>
>
>
> b.      ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?) to fully fund the agreed PTI
> budget.  If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to veto to
> ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI *and only for this
> purpose*.  (That might, of course, require increased revenue requirements
> from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD voluntary contributions,
> justified by the proposed increase in the PTI budget.)
>
>
>
> c.       A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact
> only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line.  (This
> might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget so that the
> obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing the levy on gTLD
> sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.)
>
>
>
> I *think* the alternative allows this *without* requiring a separate
> level of veto (on the PTI as at a. above, although I would hope that a
> sensible PTI would discuss its funding requirements with the OCs as part of
> its normal budgeting cycle!).
>
>
>
> Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points
> correctly, Jordan.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>]
> *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10
> *To:* lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Grace
> Abuhamad; Marika Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> Hi Jonathan and Lise,
>
>
> Thank you for this email.
>
>
>
> From it, I understand the following:
>
>
>
> a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community
> veto procedure we have in place.
>
>
>
> b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set
> identical veto thresholds for both.
>
>
>
> c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that
> participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no
> customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget.
>
>
>
> d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of
> the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity
> and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed
> new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a
> situation.
>
>
>
> e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a
> reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular
> transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside
> of this, but we will note it.)
>
>
>
> f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that *only *allows
> the community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for
> it to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes.
>
>
>
> *Please note: *
>
>
>
> *The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes -
> one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA
> Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that
> this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires.
>
>
>
> In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led
> to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for
> the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA
> Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget.
>
>
>
> I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said,
> my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the
> alternative proposal of a separate veto.
>
>
>
> *I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does
> decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. *
>
>
>
> *Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?*
>
>
>
>
>
> WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC,
> and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this
> question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this
> decision out of our hands.
>
>
>
> Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are
> in place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside
> the Budget cycle are not affected by this community power.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous
> note.
>
>
>
>
>
> best
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:
>
> 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
> me.
>
>
>
> 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)?
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *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 /
> helpful....
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Jordan
>
> ---------- 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
> threshold?
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150724/d3b0a6bf/attachment.html>