[CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability

Mon Apr 4 14:57:19 UTC 2016

Dear Gomes
Dear Chuck
I have no problem to discuss this issue.
Pls look at Sidely Draft 30March paragraph 2 in which the issue of blocking
20 Million Dollars is referred.
I am supportive of a general /high level legal text in the Bylaws  indicate
that "*there should sufficient fund **budgeted and available to ensure that
PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level
Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three
operational communities for their respective IANA services*.” without
referring to an specific amount
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-04 16:34 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:

> Kavous,
>
>
>
> No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years
> of the IANA functions budget.  I have no idea how you came to that
> conclusion.
>
>
>
> The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an
> implementation issue.  CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to
> ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year.  DT-O proposed and
> the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI:
>
> “The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and
> operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient
> funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA
> Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation.  It
> furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI
> that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence
> means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that
> PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level
> Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three
> operational communities for their respective IANA services.”
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM
>
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role
> for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval
> in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function
> budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis
> in ICANN.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss ,
>
>
>
> 2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>:
>
> Kavouss,
>
>
>
> The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was
> not done in private.  I assume you know that.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role
> for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Dear Chuck
>
> Kavouss is  not aware of  what the team had approved and what  ICANN
>  approved .
>
> These are the preliminary steps.
>
> ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!???
>
> I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing?
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting
> team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG
> Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations,
> both of which were approved by the ICANN Board.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net
> <james at cyberinvasion.net>]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> *Subject:* FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role
> for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m.
> *To: *James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> *Cc: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <
> rickert at anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>,
> CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role
> for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Dear James,
>
> Thank you
>
> No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing
> list of CWG
>
> Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY
> REQUEST  for  inclusion in the mailing list and participant list.
>
> We need to hear from each other and listen to each other.
>
> This is apparently a Multistakeholder process.
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> See Below
>
>
>
> 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>:
>
> Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of
> the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular  Design Team O has been
> working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as
> you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG
> work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those
> two blurred.
>
>
>
> -james
>
>
>
> *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m.
> *To: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <
> rickert at anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role
> for CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Dear Co-Chairs
>
> Dear CCWG Colleagues,
>
> Thank you very much for your kind message.
>
> I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to
> prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to
> translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23
> February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board
> and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016.
>
> In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated
> into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER,
>
> Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new
> requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget
> as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions.
>
> While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any
> rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face
> difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows
>
> CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through
> analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three
> public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its
> proposal.
>
> That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering
> Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval
>
> Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be
>
> Seen and approved by the entire CCWG
>
> Published for public comments
>
> Approved by Chattering Organizations
>
> Approved by ICANN Board
>
> After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be
> included in the Draft Bylaws
>
> Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG
> in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO
> ICANN BOARD.
>
> ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their
> operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget
> Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT
> MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances.
> However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has
> nothing to do with BYLAWS
>
> Regards
>
> KAVOUSS
>
>
>
> 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Mathiew,
>
>
>
>
>
> The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2.
> This is not a call for Members of WS2 ?
>
>
>
> 
>
> --
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few
> minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation
> oversight role.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Mathieu
>
>
>
> *De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill at afnic.fr]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38
> *À :* 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik
> Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar at lacnic.net; 'Katrina Sataki'
> *Cc :* 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert';
> 'gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN
> At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan
> Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia
> Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes'
> *Objet :* Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for
> CCWG-Accountability
>
>
>
> Dear Chartering Organizations,
>
>
>
> We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available
> here
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/011657.html>),
> and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and
> scoping for Work Stream 2.
>
>
>
> Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded
> with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is
> consistent with the Work Stream 1 report.
>
>
>
> To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles
> of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and
> along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal
> teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final
> draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG
> review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to
> facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws
> would be published for an open community-wide public comment period.
>
>
>
> It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends
> on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the
> end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN
> must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by *20 April*,
> and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by *27 May*.
>
>
>
>
> Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to:
>
> ·         Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws
>
> ·         Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the
> CWG-Stewardship
>
> ·         Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2)
>
>
>
> You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week
> (available here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>).
> We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that
> all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are
> aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is
> important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of
> our participants going forward.
>
>
>
> We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open
> to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with
> relevant implementation and operational experience to join the
> CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the
> heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members,
> and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to
> re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill
>
> CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160404/eb079eae/attachment-0001.html>