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

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Fri Jul 24 11:17:35 UTC 2015


Whatever craziness results from this, we MUST make some part of the
PTI budget ironclad and veto proof.

Protocol, Addresses, and ccTLD related functions (such as NSF, DEF)
come to mind (because they predate ICANN and are not intrinsically
ICANN related functions), whereas gTLD related functions should be
available to veto so the contract parties and the rest (which I
assume will be everybody and their donkey but the Protocol,
Addresses and ccTLD communities) can have their merry ways with it.

If the Master Root (currently the A Root, me thinks) were to switch to
ICANN it must also have an ironclad and veto proof budget for
running expenses due to Safety and Stability reasons.

And if ICANN subsidizes Root Server operators this must also be
ironclad and veto proof for to Safety and Stability reasons.


greetings, el


On 2015-07-24 11:09, Martin Boyle wrote:
> Thanks Jordan: I found your interpretation quite challenging and
> so it has forced me to think a bit more carefully about the way
> budget vetoes might work.
> 
>  
> 
> My main difficulty is – as I said in my previous mail – that a
> non-IANA functions operation issue should not affect the IANA
> functions operator’s budget.  In other words, this part of the
> ICANN budget needs to be ring-fenced.  There is also the
> subsidiary problem of a planned investment in the IANA functions
> operation being stopped or slowed because of a squabble about
> ICANN’s overall finances.
> 
>  
> 
> Thinking through what I take from your mail, avoiding granularity
> in veto powers is quite important and I’d agree with that: it
> would be an open door to using community budget vetoes for very
> specific budget lines (although I could imagine that that is
> always going to be a danger in this sort of power).
> 
>  
> 
> Essentially, for me there are two separate lines:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.  The IANA budget line – essentially funding that goes from
> ICANN to the IANA functions operator (the PTI subsidiary in the
> first case, but it might be to an independent contractor in due
> course, should there be full separation at some stage).  There is
> an /obligation/ on ICANN to fund this.
> 
>  
> 
> 2.  The general ICANN budget minus the ring-fenced IANA budget
> line.
> 
>  
> 
> In this, I for one would certainly not welcome anything that
> allowed a problem in 2.  to freeze the IANA budget.  Whether an
> issue in 1.  led to a more general veto for 1.  & 2.  concerns me
> less, although I would not really like to see horse-trading of the
> IANA budget with spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget – hence my
> preference would be strongly for the *alternative proposal*.
> 
>  
> 
> If we were to think of the IANA functions operation budget in
> terms of the operator, we have:
> 
>  
> 
> a. The PTI budget.  Could scrutiny and veto by the operational
> communities be at this level?  Either way (whether direct with the
> PTI or with ICANN), there needs to be some mechanism to challenge
> this budget.
> 
>  
> 
> b. ICANN is obliged (in its bylaws?)  to fully fund the agreed PTI
> budget.  If it fails to do so, the full budget could be subject to
> veto to ensure that it includes the proper funding of PTI /and
> only for this purpose/.  (That might, of course, require increased
> revenue requirements from gTLD domain name sales and from ccTLD
> voluntary contributions, justified by the proposed increase in the
> PTI budget.)
> 
>  
> 
> c. A veto for any other issues on ICANN budget would then impact
> only those parts of the ICANN budget outside the PTI budget line.
> (This might be about reducing spend elsewhere in the ICANN budget
> so that the obligation to fund the PTI did not lead to increasing
> the levy on gTLD sales or the amount of voluntary contributions.)
> 
>  
> 
> I /think/ the alternative allows this /without/ requiring a
> separate level of veto (on the PTI as at a.  above, although I
> would hope that a sensible PTI would discuss its funding
> requirements with the OCs as part of its normal budgeting cycle!).
> 
>  
> 
> Hope this helps and that I have interpreted your discussion points
> correctly, Jordan.
> 
>  
> 
> Martin
> 
[...]

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list