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

Mon Apr 4 15:00:04 UTC 2016

Dear Chuck
I have no problem with what you describing.
I am not in favour of putting a text in the Bylaws which require to block
an equivalent amount of three years PTI budget.$
as there is no logic nor rational behind neither the amount nor blocking
any credit
Regards
Kavouss

2016-04-04 16:57 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> 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/f68523e8/attachment-0001.html>