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

[Greg Shatan]

Just to be clear, I agree with the decision that we made, and don't think
it needs to be reopened.

Greg

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> I forwarded these edits to DT-O earlier today and have not received any
> feedback yet.  The edits look fine to me.  DT-O has a call at 2100 UTC
> tomorrow.  Will that be too late for feedback?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 10:53 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Subject:* FW: [client com] ICANN Bylaws on Budget - DT-O Input Needed
>
>
>
> 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
> <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 contentious actions*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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160418/a21e9062/attachment.html>