[CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

[Martin Boyle]

I'm not sure that I like the idea that financial accountability is simply at the spend side, Avri.  

Bearing in mind that the IANA function is a major part of the value that ICANN provides to the ccTLD community, the recent framework for ccTLD voluntary contributions to the ICANN budget takes this into account.  This clarity has long been seen as an important element in calculating contributions.   

While to some extent this is particularly important for ccTLDs because we develop our policy locally, have our own networks of registrars and our own multi-stakeholder engagement programmes (as well as our own engagement in international Internet governance), the principle is an important one for the delivery of a key service.  Bundling - "to get a vital service that only we provide, you must also buy all these things" - is not good practice.

However, it becomes particularly important if we end with a new IANA functions operator following an RfP.  Some ccTLDs might want to contract directly with the new operator, others will want to know that the ICANN request for increased funding is justified.  But purely on the good practice side, when we go into separation, I think those who pay the piper have a reasonable right to know how much they'll have to pay the new piper.

This does not give me any comfortable feelings about the separation CWG.  Price/quality has to be a factor in selecting a new operator (it is one of my objections to increasing SLEs without justification - it is about delivering the necessary levels of service), as well as criteria on independence and competence and skills sets in the new contractor.  It also needs to be taken into account in preparing the RfP.  The direct customers will be only too aware of the implications.  I would hope that the other team members will also want to take these concerns into account.

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 29 May 2015 17:37
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas

hi,

i disagree with the idea of earmarking  Registry funds as was suggested.  I agree that ICANN has to continue to provide funds for the transition and for the new IFO,  and that this needs to be plain in the ICANN budget. But to get into telling ICANN, as part of this exercise, how if should allocate the fund within the ICANN budget, is out of scope  for this process as far as I can tell.

All that should matter is that ICANN continues to support the IFO, and not that it should do so by earmarking registry fees.

avri



On 29-May-15 10:28, Duchesneau, Stephanie wrote:
> Hi Milton,
>
> I agree with the RySG approach too of earmarking fees regardless of 
> who the IFO is.
>
> The DT-N comment simply was that this matter needs to be handled 
> within the CWG's work, without speaking to how. I am not sure that 
> DT-N/X/SR is the right place which is why I deferred to the CWG or 
> potentially a different DT in the comment.
>
> Stephanie
>
> *Stephanie Duchesneau** *
> *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4^th  Floor, Washington, DC 20006
> *Office:** *+1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040  *Fax: *+1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz/>     
>
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com 
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
> Date: Friday, May 29, 2015 at 10:15 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>, 
> "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us 
> <mailto:Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
> Cc: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
> Subject: RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
>
> I am not Stephanie as you know, but I think you got it right Milton.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
>  
>
> *From:*Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 10:08 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Duchesneau, Stephanie; cwg-stewardship at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> *Cc:* avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Initial DT-N Response to Major Comment Areas
>
>  
>
> I find the statement about "Separation Costs" below to be very 
> strange. If there is a separation process and it results in 
> separation, PTI is "fired" and no one covers its expenses. It goes out 
> of business. ICANN contracts with someone else. For that reason, I 
> agree in principle with RySG concept of earmarked or set-side funds 
> for the IFO regardless of who it is. Stephanie, is there something 
> about this statement I did not understand correctly?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *Separation Costs: *Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA 
> expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N 
> supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a 
> determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O 
> or full CWG).
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship