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

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Feb 8 10:49:10 UTC 2016

Sébastien, Greg,

Thanks for raising this point. It is well noted and I concur that building 
consensus indeed requires face to face discussions.



De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 7 février 2016 02:05
À : Sébastien Bachollet
Cc : Mathieu Weill; CCWG-Accountability
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship 

I agree with Sebastien regarding F2Fs.  Obviously, the spending should not 
be cavalier, but the F2Fs have been very fruitful and important tools in 
both WG's processes.

I  would be wary of hard caps on legal spending, unless the firms agree to 
provide all the work needed within that cap.  Legal fee structures and cost 
containment have moved beyond crude tools such as hard caps over the last 
several years, through the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). 
There are various types of AFAs that law firms will consider in order to 
manage costs and expectations while delivering needed services.

I will reiterate one further point based on my experience.  A key tool in 
managing outside counsel is timely and substantial review of the monthly 
legal bills, in order to see who is billing for what, how projects are being 
staffed, etc.  Bills provide great insight, and anyone who thinks they are 
managing lawyers and legal spend without looking at the bills is missing a 
standard tool.


On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sébastien Bachollet 
<sebastien at bachollet.com> wrote:

Dear Mathieu,

Thanks for sharing this information.

I have no problem with your approach providing that at the end we are able 
to work as efficiently in WS2 than in WS1.

If we don’t want to be in a situation where to be equally treated all the 
items must have been done in WS1.

Specifically we can’t be constrain in a global organization not to have f2F 
meetings for such important project (WS2 on accountability).

I don’t support P13 in the PPT the following:

•       In order to contain costs, the BFC recommends no further F2F 
meetings for WS2 after Marrakech.

All the best


Skills are useful but diversity is essential.

Sébastien Bachollet

+33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033>

Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/

Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

De : <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu 
Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Date : vendredi 5 février 2016 10:15
À : 'CCWG-Accountability' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Inputs requested - Budget of the IANA Stewardship 

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 

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 

Thomas, Leon & Mathieu


Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160208/67fe803c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list