[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment

[Jordan Carter]

Hi Jonathan and Lise,

Thank you for this email.

>From it, I understand the following:

a) both the IANA and ICANN Budgets need to be subject to the community veto
procedure we have in place.

b) for reasons of simplicity and following Martin's feedback, we will set
identical veto thresholds for both.

c) the participants in decision making will be those SOs and ACs that
participate in the Community Mechanism as Single Member - there will be no
customisation of the decision-making process for the IANA Budget.

d) where a veto is in progress, and a new financial year begins, a copy of
the previous year's budget forms the continuing budget. That is, activity
and operations don't stop - resources are still available. It is proposed
new projects/funding or cuts to budgets that won't occur in such a
situation.

e) in this part of the bylaws (or somewhere else relevant), we will have a
reference to the CWG-Stewardship's requirement for adequate granular
transparency for the IANA budget. (I think this belongs somewhere outside
of this, but we will note it.)

f) you do not see a need to allow for a veto process that *only *allows the
community to veto the Board's proposed IANA Budget - you are happy for it
to be included in the ICANN Budget for veto purposes.

*Please note: *

*The alternative proposal compared with f) is to separate the two vetoes -
one for the ICANN Budget excluding the IANA budget, and one for the IANA
Budget.* I want to be clear that my understanding from your email is that
this is *NOT* what the CWG-Stewardship requires.

In such an alternate, if there was a general ICANN Budget dispute that led
to a veto, this would have absolutely no impact on the new IANA Budget for
the coming year. Likewise in reverse: if there was an issue with the IANA
Budget, it would have no impact on the general ICANN Budget.

I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach. As I have said,
my understanding from your note is that you prefer f) as drafted, not the
alternative proposal of a separate veto.

*I would be grateful if you could advise the consequences if WP1/CCWG does
decide to allow for a separate IANA Budget veto. *

*Would that still meet the CWG's requirements, or not?*


WP1 of the CCWG-Accountability will be discussing this on Tuesday 19h UTC,
and it would be good to know whether we have a decision to make on this
question or whether your requirement for one or the other takes this
decision out of our hands.

Finally, I should also note for completeness that whatever protocols are in
place for the ICANN Board to make emergency funding allocations outside the
Budget cycle are not affected by this community power.


Thank you, and sorry for not setting this out more clearly in my previous
note.


best
Jordan


On 23 July 2015 at 19:48, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:

> Hi Jordan,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your work on the budget, which is one of our requirements to
> the CCWG.
>
>
>
> It seems that the important issue is to have enough detail on the budget
> in order to follow and ensure that the IANA function is sufficient funded
> in order to fulfil its function. But is also seems that the IANA functions
> is dependent on the ICANN budget and that makes too much separation of the
> budget more complex. The budget bylaws and related processes should ensure
> to include both IANA and ICANN since it seems that the two are
> interdependent on each other. Not that they can't be separate but both
> issues – but the ICANN budget and the IANA budget need to be a package to
> be taken care of in WS1.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jonathan and Lise
>
>
>
> *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Martin Boyle
> *Sendt:* 22. juli 2015 17:34
> *Til:* Gomes, Chuck; Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Emne:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> I think I am generally in line with Chuck on this one.  I would certainly
> be averse to any solution that could leave PTI starved of cash because of
> unrelated issues within ICANN.  That does not mean that the IANA budget in
> ICANN needs to be a separate budget – the money for the IANA functions
> operation goes into ICANN from registrar sales of gTLD domain names (if I
> understand correctly) and from voluntary contributions from ccTLDs.  So
> long as there is transparency on how much this is (ie it is clearly
> identified as a separate line in the ICANN budget), that would be fine by
> me.
>
>
>
> However, I do not understand why there would be a lower threshold for
> challenging the budget than for the ICANN budget overall.  Why should there
> be?  Given the critical nature of the IANA functions operation I would
> actually see a higher threshold as more logical.  In any case, maintaining
> funding levels would be important and I would see the need for investment
> as justification for allowing an increase.  Is this perhaps a decision for
> the direct customers (who are also those who pay the costs of the IANA
> functions operation)?
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
>
> *Sent:* 21 July 2015 01:09
> *To:* Jordan Carter; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> My personal thoughts are inserted below.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jordan Carter
> *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:18 PM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA
> Budget - pls comment
>
>
>
> All - views from CWG participants on the below would be useful /
> helpful....
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Jordan
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Jordan Carter* <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Date: Sunday, 19 July 2015
> Subject: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> As noted, Lise and I have had a chat about the CWG’s requirements for the
> IANA Budget. There has to be provision as a fundamental bylaw and we need
> to be clear and constructive in how we provide appropriate
>
>
>
> The CWG’s purpose as I understand it, is that through this power the
> community has the chance to protect IANA's funding at an adequate level so
> that it can do its job.
>
>
>
> In our discussion we sketched out the following thoughts:
>
>    - The IANA Budget (the PTI Budget) would be a separate Budget from the
>    ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think it would be a problem if
>    the IANA budget was a subset of the ICANN budget provided that all of the
>    IANA costs are included and detailed in the IANA budget.
>    - The same community veto power would be available for the IANA Budget
>    as for the ICANN budget.*[Chuck Gomes] * I think this is correct. If
>    any compromise is made on this area in the CCWG, I think it would make
>    sense for the veto power to at least apply to the IANA Budget.
>    - The threshold for a veto of the IANA Budget could be lower than is
>    proposed for the ICANN budget, due to its greater sensitivity.*[Chuck
>    Gomes] * I think we should discuss this further.  A low threshold
>    might make it too easy to delay IANA funding and could risk the stability
>    of the services.  Lowering the threshold would need to be accompanied by
>    some other requirements that would ensure sufficient ongoing funding so
>    that services are not degraded and security is maintained.
>    - If an IANA Budget was vetoed, because of the requirement for earlier
>    Budgeting, the issue would likely be resolved before the start of the
>    relevant financial year.*[Chuck Gomes] * I don’t think this is a true
>    statement.  The process has been improved greatly so that community input
>    is received early enough to result in possible changes to the draft budget
>    before the Board acts on it.  But the Board still doesn’t act on it until
>    late June, just before the new fiscal year starts.  I assume the veto
>    wouldn’t occur until after Board action so that would only leave a few days
>    for resolution.  Also, I suspect that it would take some time for the veto
>    process to take place.
>    - The caretaker proposal for the IANA Budget would be that if there
>    had been a community veto and it carried into the new financial year,
>    funding would continue at the same level.*[Chuck Gomes] * This would
>    be a step in the right direction but what if a critical improvement project
>    needed new funding?
>
> Now: this all looks very similar to what would happen to the ICANN budget.
> So the only critical design question is whether it is a part of the ICANN
> budget or whether it is separate.
>
>
>
> I think separate makes sense. There will have to be a separate budget
> identified anyway, so this precursors future improvements to the IANA
> Budget review mentioned by the CWG.
>
>
>
> Thoughts on the general approach? The separate IANA Budget? A different
> threshold?
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.              *ICANN Budget and IANA Budget. *The ability for the
> community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by
> the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject
> the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission
> and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public
> interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other
> matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that
> the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating
> plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to
> the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would
> include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for Shared
> resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs
> should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific
> function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a
> yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an
> annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in
> advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It
> is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved
> by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN
> budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop
> a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a
> component of the overall budget review.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>



-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150724/76628774/attachment.html>