[CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship Transition

Fri Feb 5 16:55:18 UTC 2016

Paul,

I do not know these figures, but would note that Icann may have other
lobbying expenses than the ones related to the IANA Transition ?

I guess the question could be directed to Xavier Calvez if need be.

Best

Mathieu

De : Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 5 février 2016 17:43
À : 'Mathieu Weill'; 'CCWG-Accountability'
Objet : RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship
Transition

Mathieu

I support your approach but I’m a bit confused.  This report
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/05/icann_lobbying_payouts/) and this
one
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/19/real_icann_lobbying_expenses/)
says that ICANN lobbying costs (characterized as education/engagement)
exceeded the 0.6M recorded in the slide deck for FY15 by roughly 2 ½
times.  Is there a better explanation for the categories involved?

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
cle&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=
email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016>

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr]
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 4:16 AM
To: 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship
Transition

Dear colleagues,

This note to report that the co chairs were invited to participate to a
Board Finance Committee meeting to discuss the costs of the IANA
Stewardship Transition project (overall, not only our group). You can find
the notes from the call attached.

A follow up meeting is planned for Tuesday, February 9th. The purpose of
the call is the following (quoting the invite):

The Board Chair and members of the Board Finance Committee (BFC) would
like to request a call with the Chairs of the SO/AC Chartering
Organizations and CCWG/CWG co-chairs to seek their help and collaboration
on how to address key concerns regarding the escalating costs of the
current phase of work of the USG IANA Stewardship Transition and
Accountability WS1 (thereafter referred to in this document as THE
PROJECT) as well as Implementation work as specified in the CWG Proposal.

In advance of this call, we would like to hear your feedbacks regarding
our proposed contribution to this matter.

We believe we could recognize  :

- the value of the advice we are receiving from our two legal firms, which
is instrumental to our progress

- the appreciation from our group of the support we are getting from staff

- the legitimate concerns from the Board regarding the impact of the
project costs on Icann's financial reserves

- the massive effort undertaken by Icann to support the IANA Stewardship
Transition process

- that there are limited costs that can be attributed to the groups
(groups are not responsible for lobbying costs; personnel costs for
example), and even some of those costs directly linked to the group are
out of the control of the groups ( how many public comments received
(costs to analyze them etc)).

We would also suggest to keep our current processes in place as they are
until Marrakech, while renewing our group's commitment to act in a
financially responsible manner.

We could also offer to include in our Marrakech deliberations a discussion
to present to the Board a request for additional funding, to support Bylaw
Drafting and Implementation of WS1 on the one side, and to support WS2 on
the other side. This type of request is consistent with our Charter, which
states :

In addition to the advisors selected by the PEG, the CCWG-Accountability
may also identify additional advisors or experts to contribute to its
deliberations in a similar manner as the Advisors selected by the PEG.
Should additional costs be involved in obtaining input from additional
advisors or experts, prior approval must be obtained from ICANN. Such a
request for approval should at a minimum include the rationale for
selecting additional advisors or experts as well as expected costs.

We believe it would also be reasonable if approval of such funds were to
be provided in Tranches, so that at the end of each period of, for
example, 3 months, our group would have to report on progress and, when
appropriate, renew its request or present a new one.

Thank you for sharing your views on list on this. We look forward to your
contributions.

Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

Co-chairs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/3c4d04b1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/3c4d04b1/image001-0001.png>