[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

[Jordan Carter]

All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful /
helpful....

Best
Jordan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015
Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org


Hi all

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

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.

In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts:

   - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the
   ICANN budget.
   - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget
   as for the ICANN budget.
   - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is
   proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.
   - 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.
   - 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.

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.

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.

Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different
threshold?

cheers
Jordan



1.              *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *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.

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
Skype: jordancarter

*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*




-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150721/ed8dc0a5/attachment.html>