[DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Aug 18 00:58:29 UTC 2016
Thanks Cheryl. I pray you this vacation is short with good results.
Chuck
From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org); Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Subject: Re: [DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Chuck... Sorry forgive my tardiness I am having an unplanned "vacation" in hospital this week it seems...
All good from my POV. hope to make the call.. N
On 18 Aug 2016 08:33, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
I will make that change and send a revised document to the CWG list. I haven’t heard from Cheryl yet but she can comment in the CWG call tomorrow.
Mary – If you have any further comments please feel free to comment on this list and/or in the CWG call.
Chuck
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 6:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Dear Chuck,
stakeholders is a good word - but perhaps precede it with "all", thus "all stakeholders", as I have the concern that some view "stakeholders" in the narrowest sense as the direct customers of the IANA function. Thus by their definition, end users, for example, would not be regarded as "stakeholders". :-(
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 17/08/2016 21:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
What about saying ‘stakeholders’ instead of ‘community members’?
Chuck
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:04 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Dear Chuck,
Alas, I do not have any proposed alternative for a name. The potential challenge comes from the lack of definition for "community" - as in, ICANN community, IETF community, RIR community?
Could a solution be to use the term "Open community discussions" as is used on the ICANN Web Site? "Open" is probably the key to not delimiting/defining the Community.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 17/08/2016 19:20, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thank you very much Olivier. ‘Community members’ are not defined; I used it in a generic sense to cover all of the community. Do you think I should use a different term; if so, suggestions are welcome.
Chuck
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Dear Chuck,
thanks for this and apologies for not coming back to you immediately on your previous emails. This lack of response is mostly because we are not touching on a simple matter, but the absolute core of financial accountability for the IANA functions.
>From my perspective, as an end user, the verification that the IFO's costs should be a community exercise that's not solely restricted to the CSC. I guess I went along with having the CSC in there as we did see it as being the IANA function customers plus the liaisons to the different communities. But Xavier is right in the point that he has raised.
Thus I am in agreement with the amendments you are suggesting, Chuck. That said, I expect that this will raise some significant discussion in the CWG IANA, as money is the sinews of war.
I do have a question: are the "community members" defined?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 17/08/2016 16:32, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
If at all possible, please review the suggested edits I made to the compliance matrix today and suggest any edits you have and whether or not you approve the edits. It would be very helpful if I could say that DT-O supports the edits or some modification of them in the CWG call tomorrow (late tonight for me).
Note that the edits I made are in response to Xavier’s very valid comments below.
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: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:46 PM
To: DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: [DT-O] FW: FW: Revised compliance table
Importance: High
I haven’t seen any responses to this yet and sure would like to find out what others think before the CWG meeting in two days.
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: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:12 AM
To: DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)
Subject: [DT-O] FW: Revised compliance table
Importance: High
Please read Xavier’s comments below regarding the attached compliance matrix. I think we may need to consider modifying the DT-O assessment for requirements 1 & 2 in the matrix. If anyone has suggestions regarding how to do that, please let us know. We should make a decision in that regard this week so a revised matrix can be submitted to the CWG list.
Chuck
From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:03 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [DT-O] Revised compliance table
And forgot to add that the CSC is Naming only, while the OP&B is for all resources of PTI/IANA.
Thank you.[Chuck Gomes] .
Best,
Xavier
Xavier Calvez
ICANN
CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Office : +1 (310) 301 5838<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%20301%205838>
Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052<tel:%2B1%20%28805%29%20312%200052>
Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%C2%A0957-2348>
From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:49 AM
To: Charles Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Subject: Re: [DT-O] Revised compliance table
I agree that it is an Operational Plan and Budget, but it has nothing to do with the clients. If Verisign would get together a group of its clients to oversee how well Verisign services its customers, it would not mean that the Verisign CFO would involve those customers in Verisign’s planning process.
I think the community does oversee the operating plan and budget for PTI as for it does for ICANN.
It would be distracting for the IANA functions customers to also get involved in the planning process of PTI, you could even argue that it is conflicting with their role as customers providing oversight on the service quality.
The oversight of the planning process is not a customer role, it is a stakeholder role. Maybe I am confused. I also don’t believe the oversight of the PTI’s planning process is in the charter of the CSC.
Thank you.
Best,
Xavier
Xavier Calvez
ICANN
CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Office : +1 (310) 301 5838<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%20301%205838>
Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052<tel:%2B1%20%28805%29%20312%200052>
Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%C2%A0957-2348>
From: Charles Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:48 PM
To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [DT-O] Revised compliance table
It is an Operational Plan & Budget so that connects operations and budget. In that sense it seems to make sense. Who else would do it?
Chuck
From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:34 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [DT-O] Revised compliance table
Chuck,
Just noticed that you have the CSC providing oversight of the PTI budget process in this document. It seems strange to me since the CSC’s charter is geared towards the operational service assessment, and that the “administrative function” of budgeting seems far removed from the focus of a customer, in my opinion?
Thank you.
Best,
Xavier
Xavier Calvez
ICANN
CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Office : +1 (310) 301 5838<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%20301%205838>
Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052<tel:%2B1%20%28805%29%20312%200052>
Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348<tel:%2B1%20%28310%29%C2%A0957-2348>
From: <dto-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Charles Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM
To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>)" <dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>>
Subject: [DT-O] Revised compliance table
I am still waiting for Xavier’s input regarding item 7 on the compliance matrix but decided to send an updated version that I hope includes what we agreed to on the call today. Please review it and suggest any edits as soon as possible today.
I will add Xavier’s input after I receive it, but depending on when I receive it, that may be much later in the day.
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
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________
dto mailing list
dto at icann.org<mailto:dto at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20160818/d2eeb188/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dto
mailing list