<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Comments in-line:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/07/2015 12:09, Martin Boyle
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AD1B2C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:Wingdings;
        panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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:0cm;
        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:0cm;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0cm;
        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:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:8.0pt;
        font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
        {mso-style-priority:34;
        margin-top:0cm;
        margin-right:0cm;
        margin-bottom:0cm;
        margin-left:36.0pt;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
        {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
        mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
        font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
        margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
        {mso-list-id:634604766;
        mso-list-type:hybrid;
        mso-list-template-ids:-159218138 134807577 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
        {mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
        {mso-list-id:653682483;
        mso-list-type:hybrid;
        mso-list-template-ids:-1688809372 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l1:level1
        {mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2
        {mso-list-id:1279067930;
        mso-list-type:hybrid;
        mso-list-template-ids:582264516 -1938813716 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l2:level1
        {mso-level-start-at:0;
        mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-18.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;
        mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
        mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3
        {mso-list-id:2052536030;
        mso-list-template-ids:886225786;}
@list l3:level1
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-18.0pt;
        mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:Symbol;}
ol
        {margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
        {margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
My point of view is fully aligned with this.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AD1B2C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I agree with the rest of Martin's message.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AD1B2C@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">c.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martin<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"><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 style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> Jordan Carter
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Jonathan and Lise,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Thank you for this email. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">From it, I understand the following:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need
to be subject to the community veto procedure we have in
place. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">b) for reasons of simplicity and
following Martin's feedback, we will set identical veto
thresholds for both.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Please note: </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>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.</b> 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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I would be grateful if you could
advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does decide to allow
for a separate IANA Budget veto. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Would that still meet the CWG's
requirements, or not?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you, and sorry for not setting
this out more clearly in my previous note.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">best<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jordan<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></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">Hi
Jordan,</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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">Thank
you for your work on the budget, which is one of
our requirements to the CCWG.</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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">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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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">Best
regards,</span><o:p></o:p></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">Jonathan
and Lise</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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"">Fra:</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>
[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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></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">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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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">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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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">Martin</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<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-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></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-US">My personal thoughts are inserted
below.</span><o:p></o:p></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-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></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-US">Chuck</span><o:p></o:p></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-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></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""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">All - views from CWG participants
on the below would be useful / helpful.... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Best</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Hi all</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">In our discussion we
sketched out the following thoughts:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3
level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3
level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3
level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3
level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3
level1 lfo1">
<span lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Thoughts on the general
approach? The separate IANA Budget? A
different threshold?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">cheers</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Jordan</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">1.</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><b><span
lang="EN-US">ICANN Budget and IANA
Budget. </span></b><span
lang="EN-US">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></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"
lang="EN-US">-- </span><o:p></o:p></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"
lang="EN-US">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"
lang="EN-US"><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"
lang="EN-US"> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br>
<br>
<i>To promote the Internet's
benefits and uses, and protect
its potential.</i></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jordan Carter<br>
Chief Executive, InternetNZ</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Sent on the run, apologies
for brevity</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>