[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-O Meeting 27 May

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-O Meeting on 27 May are available here:
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895649>
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895649

 

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Notes


#125: Proposed DT O response: PTI should develop a strategic plan which should outline strategic
priorities (at a minimum every 4 years, similar to 
ICANN's strategic plan), while PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed by the
community. Fully approved budget to be done on an 
annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least 9 months in advance of the fiscal year.
It is the expectation that the ICANN Board should 
aim to approve the PTI budget at least three months in advance of the fiscal year. It is the view of
DT O that the IANA budget should be approved by 
the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the ICANN Budget (similar to the special community
budget request, for example). See also the 
comment by .nz.

DT O agrees with AFNIC's suggetion for an annual independent financial audit.

DT O notes that the final paragraph is expected to be addressed by the CWG in the context of the PTI
structure and composition. 

#283: DT O is of the view that benchmarking should be done against the cost estimates that ICANN
finance is expected to provide (as requested by the 
CWG Chairs) not the $2.3 M as suggested by the commenter. Please also refer to the recommendations
made by the CWG in the relevant annex of the proposal.

#316: DT O appreciates the feedback provided and notes there is no conflict between the two
approaches. 

#317: DT O appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps are customised for how PTI
is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). 

#319: DT O agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should
be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider 
whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150527/3b9432c5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150527/3b9432c5/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150527/3b9432c5/smime-0001.p7s>