[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

Sun Sep 13 17:08:44 UTC 2015

Well administrative expenses still technically falls within operational
cost as they are not revenue neither are they non-IANA related cost (as
Greg put it) so I am in agreement with that.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Sep 2015 17:31, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> There will be PTI overhead administrative expenses that might not
> technically be considered IANA, but other than that, they should be the
> same.
>
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On September 13, 2015 11:12:43 AM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <
> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Based on what you've written below it seem to imply there is difference
>> between IANA budget and PTI budget. This will definitely make it no longer
>> a small matter (as Chuck puts it).
>> If you say PTI/IANA budget include IANA revenue then you are simply
>> referring to ICANN revenue. Does IANA generate revenue other than following
>> instruction?
>>
>> It's like saying because a technical department of an organisation is the
>> actual implementer of service then the organisation revenue generation be
>> accrued to it. I am not an accountant, but my technical reasoning don't
>> think it's logically correct. I think the best that can be presented under
>> IANA/PTI is operating budget.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 13 Sep 2015 15:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It was my understanding that the IANA budget would also embrace
>>> IANA-related expenses (and revenues?) that were not incurred (received?) by
>>> PTI.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, it is not a big deal.  It just seemed to me that the IANA
>>>> budget and PTI budget are essentially the same thing under our proposal so
>>>> I was just curious as to why the edit was made.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 9:59 AM
>>>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> *Cc:* 'Thomas Rickert'
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure I recall the motivation (if it was discussed at all) for
>>>> this change. The way I read it, is that the IANA Budget review is by
>>>> definition also or in effect a PTI budget review and therefore it’s not
>>>> necessary to say both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we submit the comment as currently drafted and then, if for
>>>> any reason we wish to re-introduce this “/PTI budget” component, we submit
>>>> it as a minor revision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com <cgomes at verisign.com>]
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* 11 September 2015 17:30
>>>> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like the edits made and thank Sidley for doing this.  I do have one
>>>> minor question: under item 1, why was PTI deleted in this sentence: “It
>>>> is anticipated that the IANA/PTI budget Budget review will include a
>>>>
>>>> consultation process with IANA customers.”?  Like I said, this is not
>>>> a big issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
>>>> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 7:20 AM
>>>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert
>>>> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please see attached from Sidley. This addresses the feedback and
>>>> discussion from the CWG call yesterday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lise and I have discussed this version and we are satisfied that we can
>>>> submit this to the CCWG public comment as is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, as discussed yesterday, we will wait 24 hours (until 12h00
>>>> UTC, Saturday 12 September) before doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you do have additional comment or input, please do provide ASAP,
>>>> ideally by 23h59 UTC today (Friday 11 Sep) and, in any event, no later than
>>>> 12h00 UTC tomorrow (12 Sep).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank-you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com
>>>> <sflanagan at sidley.com>]
>>>> *Sent:* 11 September 2015 04:02
>>>> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Client Committee,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a revised draft of the comment letter which reflects the
>>>> discussion today, along with a few clean up edits.  We’ve attached a clean
>>>> copy and a redline against the Tuesday draft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Holly and Sharon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN*
>>>> Partner
>>>>
>>>> Sidley Austin LLP
>>>> 555 California Street
>>>> Suite 2000
>>>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>>>> +1 415 772 1271
>>>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>>>> www.sidley.com
>>>>
>>>> [image: http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]
>>>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
>>>> privileged or confidential.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>>>> attachments and notify us
>>>> immediately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150913/ace4c408/attachment.html>