[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed

Mon Apr 18 20:05:04 UTC 2016

I think there is a legitimate question of why give the Registries
Stakeholder Group a separate voice, as well as a voice as part of the
GNSO.  But implying that the GNSO is just a mouthpiece for the RySG is
incorrect.

If I recall correctly, the CWG's reasoning is that the RySG represents the
gTLD "direct customers" of IANA, while the GNSO represents the full panoply
of stakeholders mentioned in my email.  As such, this is not redundant.  We
could have gone a step further and suggested that the RySG abstain from the
GNSO's deliberations and voting, but that would have been quite a radical
move.

Greg

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You are mistaken.
>>
>> Your statements belittle the remainder of the GNSO and denigrate the
>> credibility of the GNSO as a multistakeholder organization.
>>
>
> If i understand CW's intent i think your comment above may have indeed
> been what he was trying to avoid (unfortunately). The proposed text says:
> "...Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees[, as well as the
> Registries Stakeholder Group..."
>
> The point then is since Registries stakeholder group is part of GNSO there
> is no need to repeat registries stakeholder group (section highlighted in
> yellow)
>
> Regards
>
> Which may have been your intent.
>>
>> On the other hand, there may be at least a grain of truth, unfortunately,
>> in your statements. A discussion of the extent to which your statements are
>> true would be quite interesting, but off-topic here (on-topic, however, for
>> CCWG-Accountability WS2, SO/AC Accountability; and possibly would have been
>> on-topic for the misbegotten "GNSO Review").
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>> IPC President (but writing in my personal capacity)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Wilkinson <
>> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>>
>>> Good evening:
>>>
>>> May I suggest that there seems to be an element of duplication, if not
>>> double counting in this proposal.
>>>
>>> The Registries Stakeholder Group is the principal element of the GNSO. I
>>> do not see the point of consulting with RSG as well as GNSO.
>>> It amounts to the same thing, if I am not mistaken.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> CW
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Apr 2016, at 16:53, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Please see below for a further bylaws point raised via the client
>>> committee.
>>>
>>> We have discussed it on list in the client committee and Lise & myself
>>> have discussed in person.
>>>
>>> It is our view to accept the edit proposed below i.e.
>>>
>>> “to ensure performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future is
>>> not interrupted due to lack of funding”
>>>
>>> And to retain the highlighted language in square brackets i.e.
>>>
>>> consult with the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees[, as
>>> well as the Registries Stakeholder Group, the IAB and RIRs,]
>>>
>>> Please highlight any concerns with this and/or flag if this will be
>>> further considered by DT-O.
>>>
>>> Thank-you,
>>>
>>>
>>> Lise & Jonathan
>>>
>>> *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
>>> *Sent:* 18 April 2016 01:33
>>> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>>> *Subject:* [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> ICANN Legal is proposing the following edits to Sections 22.4 and 22.5
>>> and Annex F.  Can DT-O confirm these edits are acceptable or identify any
>>> concerns?  We thought #1 and #2 looked ok; however, we understand
>>> “uninterrupted” was discussed by DT-O.  ICANN Legal explained their concern
>>> with “uninterrupted” below:
>>>
>>> “Uninterrupted could be read to signal a technical SLA that the minute
>>> to minute (or second to second) performance of IANA functions will always
>>> be “uninterrupted”.  While that is clearly what our team strives for (and
>>> we do not have complaints as far as I’m aware of regarding our performance
>>> levels), we should avoid technical SLA language to move to what we
>>> understood the intention to be, that there not be gaps in funding that put
>>> the fact of performance of the IANA functions at risk.  Then whatever
>>> technical agreements there are on how that service will be delivered should
>>> be housed elsewhere.”
>>>
>>> One alternative that should meet the concern raised by ICANN Legal,
>>> while also covering the concept of no interruptions is below:
>>>
>>> “to ensure performance of those IANA functions and PTI in the future is
>>> not interrupted due to lack of funding”
>>>
>>> With respect to #3, Sidley proposed language to try and capture the DT-O
>>> request.  ICANN Legal’s edits are reflected as a redline to our proposed
>>> language.  Please advise if this captures the concept being requested by
>>> DT-O, which is also below.  Also, is the bracketed language necessary?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sharon
>>>
>>> *PROPOSED EDITS TO 22.4, 22.5 AND ANNEX F*
>>>
>>> 1.      *ICANN Legal Proposed Edits to Section 22.4(f)*:
>>> “To maintain ongoing operational excellence and financial stability of
>>> the IANA functions (so long as they are performed by ICANN or pursuant to
>>> contract with ICANN) and PTI, ICANN shall be required to plan for and
>>> allocate funds to *ICANN’s performance of* the IANA functions and *to*
>>> PTI*,* as applicable*,* that are sufficient to cover the future
>>> expenses and contingencies to ensure uninterrupted*continuous* performance
>>> of those IANA functions and PTI in the future.”
>>>
>>> 2.      *ICANN Legal Proposed Edits to Annex F(1)(f)*
>>> “Notwithstanding any other principle listed above, prevents ICANN, in
>>> its responsibility to fund the operations of the IANA functions, from
>>> initiating activities that are*remain* subject to community
>>> consideration (or for which that community consultation has not concluded)* with
>>> respect to the applicable IANA Budget*, including without limitation,
>>> preventing implementation of any contentious expenditures*expenditure* or
>>> undertaking any contentiousactions*action* that were*was* the subject
>>> of the IANA Budget that was rejected by the EC and*that* triggered the
>>> need for the Caretaker IANA Budget.”
>>>
>>> 3.      *Current Draft Language – Section 22.4(b)(i)*:
>>>
>>> Separately and in addition to the general ICANN planning process, *ICANN
>>> shall require* PTI shall*to* prepare and submit to the PTI Board a
>>> proposed annual operating plan and budget for *PTI’s performance of* the
>>> IANA functions for the next fiscal year (“*PTI Budget*”). *ICANN shall
>>> require* PTI shall*to*consult with the Supporting Organizations and
>>> Advisory Committees[, as well as the Registries Stakeholder Group, the
>>> IAB and RIRs,] during the PTI Budget development process, and shall
>>> seek public comment on the draft PTI Budget prior to approval of the PTI
>>> Budget by PTI. The*ICANN shall require PTI to submit the* PTI Budget shall
>>> be submitted to ICANN as *an* input prior to and for the purpose of
>>> being included in the proposed Operating Plan (as defined in *Section
>>> 22.5(a)*) and ICANN Budget.
>>>
>>> This draft language attempts to capture this language in the attached
>>> DT-O document, modified to align with comparable language relating to the
>>> ICANN Budget:
>>> “Separately and in addition to the general ICANN planning process, PTI
>>> shall prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and
>>> budget for the IANA functions for the upcoming planning cycle. Such
>>> proposed operating plan and budget shall provide appropriate information to
>>> enable a consultation process allowing for broad community engagement and
>>> input, including appropriate steps for addressing such community input. The
>>> proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions, resulting from
>>> such process, shall be submitted to ICANN as input prior to and for the
>>> purpose of being included in the proposed ICANN operating plan and budget,
>>> itself then subject to a broad consultation process, including appropriate
>>> steps for addressing community input.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> <Untitled attachment 00020.txt>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160418/9abb8b0c/attachment-0001.html>