[CCWG-ACCT] Board further comments on recommendation 4 - relating to the IANA Budget

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All, 
 
On Budget (IANA) Recommendation 4, the Board has the following comment:
 
The Board supports the revisions provided in the 1st reading document of the CCWG for this provision. The addition of language reflected in paragraph 21 addresses the Board's comments and concerns that any process through which a portion or the whole of the IANA budget is subject to rejection must include the voice of the operational communities served by the IANA functions.  Additionally, the Board supports the inclusion of the process ensuring the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions, and proper delivery of contractual service levels to the respective operational communities. 
 
With regards to the caretaker budget (reference in paragraph 13) the Board wants to remind the CCWG of its comments on the ICANN Caretaker budget, and the recommendation that the whole of the caretaker budget approach is embedded in the Fundamental Bylaws, including the responsibility of the CFO to establish the caretaker budget in accordance with the defined approach.  The board's proposal can be found on page 10, paragraph 1e of its comments.  The language in the redline could be read as a commitment to only include caretaker budget considerations for the IANA budget.  Copied here for convenience: 
 
1) e. Board Proposal on ICANN Caretaker Budget

	In the event that the process for community power to reject the Operating Plan and Budget is invoked, and after the preceding escalation 	mechanism (as described in Recommendation #2) has failed to resolve an issue, the rejection is triggered.   While the rejection is in effect 	and being resolved, ICANN needs an operating plan and a budget so that it can continue to operate on a day-to-day basis.  The notion of a 	caretaker Operating Plan and Budget has been defined to address this need.  The caretaker budget is in substance a replacement Operating 	Plan and Budget designed to allow the organization to operate its basic and primary functions, while avoiding "non-indispensable" work 	during the period of the rejection is in effect.   The conceptual definition of the caretaker budget has been formulated, but the more 	detailed definition of what is "indispensable" or not now must be further documented.

The Board accepts the above described approach to the veto process and corresponding caretaker Operating Plan and Budget. The Board also recommends that the caretaker budget approach be embedded in the Fundamental Bylaws, including the responsibility of the CFO to establish the caretaker budget in accordance with the defined approach. The Board's acceptance of this approach is also predicated on the consistency of the implemented solution with the conceptual definition described above.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG