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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 16:08:55 UTC 2016


Thanks, Chris.  I had seen that.  I was referring to the way that the
PowerPoint dealt with the matter.

Greg

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> See
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-stewardship-project-costs-2015-10-16-en which
> sets out individual costs.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 7 Feb 2016, at 12:14 , Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would also note that the legal spend includes Sidley, Adler & Colvin and
> Jones Day.  I question lumping ICANN's counsel in with the Working Groups
> counsel in an undifferentiated manner.  Clearly, the WG chairs don't have
> the same responsibility for Jones Day's spend or oversight.
>
> That does suggest, however, that if a hard cap were put in place, it would
> need to apply to all 3 firms.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> 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
>>> SeB
>>>
>>> *Skills are useful but diversity is essential.*
>>>
>>> Sébastien Bachollet
>>> +33 6 07 66 89 33
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160208/b3b74d49/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list