[CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Mathieu

 

I support your approach but I’m a bit confused.  This report
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/icann_lobbying_payouts/) and this
one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/19/real_icann_lobbying_expenses/)
says that ICANN lobbying costs (characterized as education/engagement)
exceeded the 0.6M recorded in the slide deck for FY15 by roughly 2 ½ times.
Is there a better explanation for the categories involved?

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

 

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:16 AM
To: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship
Transition

 

Dear colleagues, 

 

This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a
Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA Stewardship
Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find the notes
from the call attached. 

 

A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of the
call is the following (quoting the invite): 

The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would like
to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering Organizations and
CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration on how to address
key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the current phase of work of
the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability WS1 (thereafter
referred to in this document as THE PROJECT) as well as Implementation work
as specified in the CWG Proposal.

 

In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding our
proposed contribution to this matter. 

 

We believe we could recognize  : 

- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which
is instrumental to our progress

- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff

- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the project
costs on Icann's financial reserves

- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship
Transition process

- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups (groups
are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for example), and
even some of those costs directly linked to the group are out of the control
of the groups ( how many public comments received (costs to analyze them
etc)).

 

We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are
until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a
financially responsible manner. 

 

We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion
to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw
Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on
the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which
states :  

In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability may
also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its
deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG.
Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional
advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a
request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for selecting
additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs. 

 

We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to be
provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for example, 3
months, our group would have to report on progress and, when appropriate,
renew its request or present a new one. 

 

Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your
contributions.

 

Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

Co-chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/c0fba711/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/c0fba711/image001.png>