[CCWG-ACCT] PTI Funding to cover ICANN crisis

[Alan Greenberg]

-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On June 3, 2015 2:01:57 AM EDT, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>hi all, hi Alan
>
>First question - is this a CCWG issue or a CWG one?

Oops! Wrong list....
>
>Some other questions...
>
>What would happen to these funds where the PTI's performance meant that
>the
>IANA functions were given to another entity?
>
>Would they become a windfall to the PTI? Or would they move by contract
>or
>some other instrument to the new IANA Functions Operator?

Good question. 

We would have tlo ensure the latter.

Alan
>
>
>intrigued,
>
>Jordan
>
>
>
>
>On 3 June 2015 at 17:19, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>wrote:
>
>> As discussed during today's meeting, I would like to formally suggest
>that
>> the CCWG propose that Upon the creation of PTI, ICANN will provide
>the
>> equivalent of three years funding to PTI (both operational and R%D),
>and
>> that PTI should hold these funds in escrow to cover any future
>situation
>> where ICANN is not in a position to adequately find approved PTI
>budgets
>> (the wording will clearly need to be refined). Furthermore, the
>amount
>> provided by ICANN and held in escrow should be adjusted annually
>based on
>> the then-current budget levels.
>>
>> There may need to be some adjustment of this to cover interest earned
>on
>> the escrow funds, but I suspect there are standard business terms
>that
>> cover this sort of thing.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>