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

Mon Apr 18 21:43:54 UTC 2016

But registries are the direct consumers of IANA functions folks, both g’s and cc’s.  I do not think it is “double counting” to specifically call out registries.  The ccNSO IS an SO/AC in its own right, but the Registry Stakeholder Group is not.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, April 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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@<mailto:sflanagan@>sidley.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sidley.com&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=OVD-jOO3mccl6XLPHFCuuroGaC9qmHx612xlntCfMwE&e=>]
Sent: 18 April 2016 01:33
To: Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto: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 uninterruptedcontinuous 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 areremain 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 expendituresexpenditure or undertaking any contentiousactionsaction that werewas the subject of the IANA Budget that was rejected by the EC andthat 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 shallto 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 shalltoconsult 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. TheICANN 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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=>

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=XJaMCj6smTSugb-_nYsu7wLi0FyVeXokD6JToHAGh2A&e=>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=IijSQzwos6yibxm61s4GX7VZuJthfE7GI1cAoqeeFFM&e=>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goog-5F1872880453&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PRieGVmlKsDvvaWQdcfZnoQWOW-Js_tVSPzOeqrQB0A&s=X0yHPMdi3LhuDKyJojYq3gCGLtUi2Zv4p0g6rqtQeUI&e=>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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/20160418/59cb1204/attachment-0001.html>