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

[Lise Fuhr]

Hi Jordan,

 

Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to the CCWG.

 

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.

 

Best regards,

Jonathan and Lise

 

Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Martin Boyle
Sendt: 22. juli 2015 17:34
Til: Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

 

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.

 

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)?

 

Martin

 

 

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 21 July 2015 01:09
To: Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

 

My personal thoughts are inserted below.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

 

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.[Chuck Gomes]  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.
*	The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget as for the ICANN budget.[Chuck Gomes]  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.
*	The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.[Chuck Gomes]  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.
*	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.[Chuck Gomes]  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.
*	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.[Chuck Gomes]  This would be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project needed new funding?

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)
 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');> 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/20150723/7d3f5387/attachment-0001.html>