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

[Seun Ojedeji]

+1 FWIW, I expect that the legal costs would reduce significantly. Aside
ICANN expense, I expect the overall cost of participation for each
volunteer would reduce since schedules will be more flexible. I can imagine
some volunteers in this process has made this a priority that may have cost
them one way or the other.

Cheers!
On 5 Feb 2016 2:59 p.m., "Jonathan Zuck" <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:

> Agreed. One budget positive aspect of WS2 is that it is perhaps more
> policy driven and less structural as well as more dispersed and more easily
> amortized.
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> President
> ACT: The App Association
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:53 AM -0800, "Drazek, Keith" <
> kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
>
>
> Thanks for forwarding this information. I support the approach you have
> outlined.
>
>
>
> I would add, however, that we will also need to help ICANN more accurately
> predict workload and associated expenses for WS-2, so future budget
> planning can be more accurate. Speaking personally, I believe the Board’s
> concerns around the “impact of project cost on ICANN’s reserves” are
> legitimate. We should help ICANN’s finance department better understand the
> future WS2 work plan to help ICANN allocate (or re-allocate) funds and
> hopefully avoid future overages and having to draw on reserves.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mathieu
> Weill
> *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 4:16 AM
> *To:* 'CCWG-Accountability'
> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160205/a9af21aa/attachment.html>