[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Anne,

>>  In this regard, I noted Jonathan's comments on behalf of Stewardship and found myself wondering how the conditions listed in their recommendations (especially as to the budget) are met by the MEM proposal.

The Board proposes introducing a community approval process to the budget approval process into the fundamental bylaws.

The MEM proposal allows the community to ensure the Board is following the bylaws, and that the decision of an independent panel becomes binding.

With respect to bylaws changes for the Budget, the Board suggested the following process:

- the community should have a maximum of two opportunities to reject the budget

- the Board in both cases would work with the community to resolve the concerns of the community

- if after two rejections the Budget cannot be adjusted to take into account the community’s view, the Board may proceed to approve a Budget, but the budget may not include new, substantial items not accepted by the community, and may not represent an increase of more than 10% over the previous year’s Budget (taking into account any inflation at the time). 

- This would allow ICANN to continue its operations with Budgets/Plans more appropriately allocated for its current operating/fiscal year
than would be possible under a requirement that ICANN simply maintain an historical Budget/Plan. 

I am not sure how this would not meet the budget requirements regarding the IANA function.   ie the IANA function would essentially continue on its previous budget with an increase up to 10%.       I guess the community could reject an increase in the IANA budget beyond that - but not sure that is a concern of the CWG.


The budget approval process is certainly a topic of interest to the Board - and the Board's is trying to support the concept of the community being able to reject a budget, but didn’t want to get into a budget paralysis situation.  The Board also wanted a little flexibility to be able to go up by up to 10% if there were increases in costs e.g. data centre costs, etc.   The intent though was that the Board couldn't add a new substantial item without community approval  - e.g. to buy an office building etc.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin