[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Fri Jul 24 12:57:46 UTC 2015
Absolutely.
On 7/24/2015 1:24 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> However it is handled, I’d like to think that we can all agree that
> any veto of the ICANN budget should definitely not have any negative
> impact on sufficient ongoing funding of PTI/IANA. I think that this is
> the key point I take from Martin’s message.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 6:51 AM
> *To:* Martin Boyle; Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for
> IANA Budget - pls comment
>
> My thinking in Paris and the debate that I had with Bruce Tonkin on
> the IANA budget was largely consistent with Martins email below so I
> would support this position.
>
> -James
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Boyle
> *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 11:10 AM
> *To:* Jordan Carter; lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>;
> Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for
> IANA Budget - pls comment
>
> 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
>
> *From:*Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
> *Sent:* 24 July 2015 05:10
> *To:* lisefuhrforwader
> *Cc:* Martin Boyle; Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings;
> Jonathan Robinson; Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for
> IANA Budget - pls comment
>
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649
> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto: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 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
>
> /A better world through a better Internet /
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150724/2f54bc73/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list