<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Absolutely.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/24/2015 1:24 PM, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E49653855@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
        margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:8.0pt;
        font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
        {mso-style-priority:34;
        margin-top:0in;
        margin-right:0in;
        margin-bottom:0in;
        margin-left:.5in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
        {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
        mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
        font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
        {mso-style-type:personal;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
        {mso-style-type:personal;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
        {mso-list-id:1086418773;
        mso-list-template-ids:-1243083942;}
@list l0:level1
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level3
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level4
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level6
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level7
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level9
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
ol
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James Gannon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 24, 2015 6:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>; Accountability
Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG
requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">-James<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 24, 2015 11:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>;
Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG
requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Essentially, for me there are two separate
lines:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">1.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-GB">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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
<i>obligation</i> on ICANN to fund this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">2.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-GB">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced
IANA budget line.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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
<b>alternative proposal</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">If we were to think of the IANA functions
operation budget in terms of the operator, we have:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">a.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-GB">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">b.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-GB">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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 <i>and only for this purpose</i>.
(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.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">c.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D" lang="EN-GB">
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">I
<i>think</i> the alternative allows this <i>without</i>
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!).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Hope this helps and that I have interpreted
your discussion points correctly, Jordan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Jordan Carter [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 24 July 2015 05:10<br>
<b>To:</b> lisefuhrforwader<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a></a>; Grace Abuhamad; Marika
Konings; Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG
requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi Jonathan and Lise,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Thank you for this email. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">From it, I
understand the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">a) both the IANA and
ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community veto
procedure we have in place. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">b) for reasons of
simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set
identical veto thresholds for both.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">f) you do not see a
need to allow for a veto process that
<b>only </b>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Please note: </span></b><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">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.</span></b><span
lang="EN-GB"> I want to be clear that my understanding
from your email is that this is <b>NOT</b> what the
CWG-Stewardship requires.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">I would be
grateful if you could advise the consequences if
WP1/CCWG does decide to allow for a separate IANA
Budget veto. </span></b><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Would that still
meet the CWG's requirements, or not?</span></b><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Thank you, and sorry
for not setting this out more clearly in my previous
note.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jordan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">On 23 July 2015 at
19:48, Lise Fuhr <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk" target="_blank">lise.fuhr@difo.dk</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Hi Jordan,</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Thank you for your work on the
budget, which is one of our requirements to the
CCWG.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Jonathan and Lise</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-GB">Fra:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-GB">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>På vegne af </b>Martin Boyle<br>
<b>Sendt:</b> 22. juli 2015 17:34<br>
<b>Til:</b> Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Emne:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd:
Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls
comment</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">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)?</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB">Martin</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes, Chuck</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 21 July 2015 01:09<br>
<b>To:</b> Jordan Carter; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd:
Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget -
pls comment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">My
personal thoughts are inserted below.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Chuck</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jordan Carter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org"
target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting
CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">All
- views from CWG participants on the below would
be useful / helpful.... <span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best<span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jordan <br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Jordan Carter</b> <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a></a>><br>
Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015<br>
Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
Budget - pls comment<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
all<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">In
our discussion we sketched out the
following thoughts:<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would
be a separate Budget from the ICANN
budget.<b><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">[Chuck
Gomes]
</span></i></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"> 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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
The same community veto power would be
available for the IANA Budget as for
the ICANN budget.<b><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">[Chuck
Gomes]
</span></i></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"> 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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
The threshold for a veto of the IANA
Budget could be lower than is proposed
for the ICANN budget, due to its
greater sensitivity.<b><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">[Chuck
Gomes]
</span></i></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"> 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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
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.<b><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">[Chuck
Gomes]
</span></i></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"> 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.</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
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.<b><i><span
style="color:#1F497D">[Chuck
Gomes]
</span></i></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"> This would be
a step in the right direction but
what if a critical improvement
project needed new funding?</span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thoughts
on the general approach? The separate
IANA Budget? A different threshold?<span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">cheers<span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Jordan<span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.75in">1.<span
style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><b>ICANN
Budget and IANA Budget. </b>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.<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white">-- </span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222">Jordan
Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:04%20495%202118"
target="_blank">04 495 2118</a>
(office) | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649"
target="_blank">
+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1155CC"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a></a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222"> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>To promote the Internet's
benefits and uses, and protect
its potential.</i></span><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ<span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">
jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p>Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jordan
Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><br>
<br>
+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649
(mob)<br>
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank"><span
style="color:#1155CC">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
<i>A better world through a better
Internet </i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>