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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Jul 27 05:51:50 UTC 2015 

Well, maybe it's too early to determine that but I am of the opinion that
it may be helpful to include a short description of what we mean by "IANA
budget" in the document so it's clear what is being vetoed.

I expect there is a an annual fee to be paid by the entity to the state,
small as it may be. That's what I meant by subsidiary dues.

Regards
On 27 Jul 2015 2:29 am, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> We shouldn't assume that the PTI budget and the "IANA budget" are the same
> thing.  The PTI budget and the iANA budget are not the same thing (unless I
> am very much mistaken, or unless we take a particular accounting view of
> things).  ICANN will be providing various services, including "back-office"
> services, to PTI, such as payroll, HR, benefits, tech support (probably),
> etc., etc.  The exact scope of services and an agreement under which those
> services will be provided needs to be worked out in the implementation of
> the transition proposal.  The departments providing these services should
> be considered as part of the "IANA budget" to the extent necessary to
> support those services.  This might be reflected in the PTI budget if PTI
> is "paying" ICANN for those services (after being funded by ICANN to "pay"
> for those services), but it's too early to know how the accounting will be
> handled between ICANN and PTI.
>
> On another note, I have no idea what "subsidiary dues" are.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Except the cost relating to maintaining PTI as a structure (it's board,
>> it's subsidiary dues, committees et all) I don't think the IANA operating
>> budget would go beyond control to warrant a community veto.
>>
>> That said, there are quite a number of areas that may still need to be
>> clarified as the scope of PTI budget. Does it for instance include
>> personnel cost, does it include related community costs like the work of
>> the IFRT or that of CSC. Also if there arise a need to veto on IANA budget,
>> will it be in violation of the contract terms or just because of what the
>> community feels is right/wrong.
>>
>> The possibility of whether IANA budget can be presented by operational
>> community categorisation may also be a perquisite towards answering whether
>> a veto on IANA budget will affect the 3 operational communities.
>>
>> Regards
>> On 26 Jul 2015 10:08 pm, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin
>>> That was one side of the coin.
>>> Suppose PTI in its second year of its new life decided to increase its
>>> annual  IANA Budget of precious year justified by all reasons given and
>>> then send it to ICANN for approvals.
>>> Supposed ICANN  did not agree to that increase and  established an
>>> overall budget which does not includes the increase request by PTI/IANA .If
>>> community objects to that what would happen ?
>>> Do we maintain the budget of previous year which was considered by PTI
>>> insufficient?
>>> Kazoos
>>>
>>> 2015-07-26 22:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:
>>>
>>>>  Hi Olivier,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > “Indeed, why would any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely, but, for example, PTI started to do things outside its remit,
>>>> or started to inflate staff and directors’ salaries unduly, or demanded an
>>>> increased budget without a reasonable process with the community and
>>>> community buy-in.  I think there might be theoretical cases where there
>>>> might be good reason for a budget veto, but I guess that this would
>>>> probably be a pre-cursor to a special IFR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
>>>> *Sent:* 25 July 2015 11:09
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comments in-line:
>>>>
>>>> On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point of view is fully aligned with this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CWG IANA's DT-O dealing with IANA/PTI Funding looked at ways to have a
>>>> very stable and predictable IANA/PTI budget. Some of us advocated to have 2
>>>> years' worth of IANA budget funding ready, of which one would be held in
>>>> Escrow. This points to having a year on year IANA budget that does not
>>>> change dramatically. I remind everyone that the primary concern for IANA is
>>>> to ensure stable operations, year on year. Having the ability to veto the
>>>> IANA budget, for whatever reason, without provisions that if the budget was
>>>> vetoed and a delay would lead to passing the Fiscal Year Deadline, the IANA
>>>> operations would still be funded, introduces instability. Indeed, why would
>>>> any Community want to veto the IANA Budget?
>>>>
>>>> I do not know why the concept of a year of IANA budget being fenced for
>>>> 2 years, including 1 year in Escrow, was not carried over by DT-O.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the rest of Martin's message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150727/3d779900/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list