[DT-O] Letter to Jonathan & Lise regarding Bylaws

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Xavier.  Please see my responses below.

Chuck

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] Letter to Jonathan & Lise regarding Bylaws

Dear Chuck,

thanks for this. I believe the letter reflects our discussions accurately. Whilst reading this, I did have one question re: the use of the term "IANA operations costs to the project level and below a needed". On the call, I asked whether we could ask Xavier whether there was any particular reason for the mention of "IANA operations" in the ICANN budget now that operations are set to be performed by PTI.
In particular, I wonder whether anyone here has clarification on whether other Customers of IANA, namely the IETF & RIRs will contract directly with PTI, or whether they'll contract with ICANN which will in turn sub-contract the work to PTI?
[Chuck Gomes] It is best that Xavier answer this but let me share my opinion, assuming I understand your concern.  I believe it is because PTI costs will be included in the ICANN budget.  That is one of the advantages of having the PTI costs finalized before the Draft ICANN budget is posted for public comment.


When it comes to the rewording of the clause 1.f, you mention:
"

•        In a case like that, it might not be necessary to prevent funding of the actions while the dispute is resolved; in other words, it might be fine if the actions proceeded at the reduced funding level until a decision is made on increased funding, especially if taking the actions at the reduced funding level would not negatively impact the actions if increased funding was provided later."


Does this not depend on the level of a caretaker PTI budget? If the proposed budget (which is disputed) is below the level of a caretaker PTI budget, would it be preferable that indeed a caretaker PTI budget should kick in?[Chuck Gomes]  If the IANA budget is vetoed and the issues are not resolved before the start of the applicable fiscal year, the IANA Caretaker Budget will kick in but it will still be necessary to exclude any costs in the Caretaker Budget that would involve contentious issues relating to the reason(s) for the budget veto.

Kindest regards,

Olivier
On 14/04/2016 17:20, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Note that I cc’d DT-O on a later version of this so please review the latest version that is named ‘DT O message to CWG list 14 April 16 v2’.

Chuck

From: dto-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:35 AM
To: DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: [DT-O] Letter to Jonathan & Lise regarding Bylaws
Importance: High

Attached is a letter that I drafted communicating the results of our DT-O meeting yesterday.  Please review it as quickly as possible and let me know if I misstated anything.  Note that there is still one missing piece, the rewording of Principle 1.f in Annex F regarding the IANA Caretaker Budget.

This draft was already sent to Lise and Jonathan because of time sensitivity but I am pretty sure we can still make changes if needed.

Chuck




_______________________________________________

dto mailing list

dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dto



--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20160414/d1a5c92d/attachment.html>