<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That's why I suggested asking the people involved....</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span class="im">Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information...</span></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only person regularly
contributing that may have some insight. I don't know to what extent he
pays attention to every CWG e-mail!<br><br>
My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, but also that it could
vary heavily from year to year.<br><br>
It would be correct that this work is not done entirely within IANA, but
I am quite sure that some will be and at times there will need to be
budgets for consulting, external contract work and such.<br><br>
I find it fascinating that we are spending our time on conjecture when we
could simply ask the people involved.<br><br>
Alan<span class=""><br><br>
At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="">I think Item 3 needs to be
clarified:<br><br>
</span><b>3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) –
DT O / DDT F<br>
</b><span class=""><br>
<b>DT-O recommendation</b>: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that
there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D
for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be
covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These
would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9
months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed
budget.<br><br>
Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information on how
much "R&D" or innovation development goes on within the
IANA Functions group (which I envision as Elise Gerich and her reports),
and how much of that goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN
(e.g., IETF). Perhaps this could be answered with regard to the
examples given (DNSSEC and IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group
was consulted at points in development and particularly with regard to
deployment, but it was not my impression that these were "researched
and developed" within the IANA team.<br><br>
Unless there are good reasons to change, we should follow and fund the
current model for division of labor on development/innovation vs.
implementation. It would help to clarify this, and perhaps tighten
up the language a bit, to avoid the impression that IANA is going to
become a big-time R&D shop.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad
<<a href="mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org" target="_blank">grace.abuhamad@icann.org</a>
> wrote:<br>
</span><dl>
<dd>Dear all, <br>
</dd><dd><span class="">Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public
Comment Review Tool<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development
(InternetNZ) – DT O<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months
in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance
of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency.
<br><br>
<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific
budget review (CCWG) – DT O<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of
the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that
a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of
the proposal. <br><br>
<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC)
– DT O / DT F<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">DT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that
there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D
for other special project (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be
covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These
would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9
months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed
budget.<br><br>
<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that
expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified ((IPC) – CWG<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI
will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would
approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of
operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and
an additional year kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds
would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future
reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through
CCWG Accountability process. <br><br>
<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how
IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N
supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination
on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the
point of transition, but this information could be requested to be
developed within the first year of implementation. In first year,
increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be
provided: <br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class=""> - 1 year of operating
expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and <br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class=""> - an additional year earmarked
open to low-risk investments..<br><br>
<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>Best, <br>
</dd><dd>Grace<br><br>
</dd><dd><span class="">From: <Gomes>, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM<br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">To: "DT-O Mailing List
(<a href="mailto:dto@icann.org" target="_blank">dto@icann.org</a>)"
<<a href="mailto:dto@icann.org" target="_blank">dto@icann.org</a>><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items
summary<br><br>
</span></dd><dd><span class="">Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that
I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and
comment on this list.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Chuck<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>· Consider
InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) –
DT O<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that
those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget
(as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations
concerning budget that might be applicable here.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>· CWG will need to
develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) –
DT O<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability
chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of
the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there
are any elements that should be developed as part of the final
proposal.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>· Need for a budget
to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT F<br>
<br>
</dd><dd><span class="">CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility
to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered
as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the
expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is
expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation
of the proposed budget.<br><br>
</span></dd><dd>· PTI should be
adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate –
should be clarified (IPC) – CWG<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding.
Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent
way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications
that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating†, noting that
there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget,
including the CCWG mechanisms.<br><br>
</dd><dd>· Separation Costs:<span class=""><br>
<br>
</span></dd><dd>Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be
covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this
recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this
issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).<br><br>
</dd><dd>CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG
suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the
IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition
costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a
new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will
review the proposal and clarify accordingly.<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>From:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Marika
Konings<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items
summary<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Dear all,<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action
items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls
over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in
the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are
requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in
the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. <br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Thanks,<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Marika<br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dd></dl><span class=""><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></span></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>