[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi,


I agree with Jordan's comments on the IANA budget.

To be more specific - 

> *IANA budget - role of operational communities*
(snip)
> Because of this, my recommendation is that we stick with the status quo as
> represented in the Third Draft Proposal.

That works for me and it's inline with the discussions I am now having in the ASO.
I should be able to share more details at the coming call, as the numbers community would be regarded as one of the operational communities.

> *The other topics*
> 
> I support and regard as uncontroversial the inclusion of the CWG
> requirements and of caretaker budget detail being an implementation matter.

Strongly agree.

> On the identically worded comments from a couple of people to move the
> Budget power for IANA from fundamental to standard bylaws, I don't think we
> should move. The whole PTI construct is going to be set out in fundamental
> bylaws. This, like all the other community powers, should be treated the
> same way.

While I don't have a very strong opinion, this approach makes sense.


Izumi



On 2016/01/07 2:37, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I have a couple of comments about this budget stuff -- Asha and Cherine, it
> would be helpful if you could consider this before the call on Thursday and
> share views there if you can (as the board members that have taken most
> interest in this).
> 
> *IANA budget - role of operational communities*
> 
> On the role of the operational communities in the IANA Budget veto power -
> I have sympathy with the Board's position, and as rapporteur for WP1 tried
> to spur a discussion on having the decisions made on the IANA Budget veto
> by the operational communities. This didn't attract any support in WP1 or
> in the CCWG and so didn't go anywhere.
> 
> Since the Board submitted its comments, it has become clearer through other
> comments that it may be better to stick with the proposal. The IETF has
> been clear in its comments that it wants no direct role in the IANA Budget
> veto, and the NRO for the numbers community in its comments supported the
> third draft proposal (it can participate if it chooses).
> 
> Because of this, my recommendation is that we stick with the status quo as
> represented in the Third Draft Proposal.
> 
> Asha, Cherine: has the Board looked at the comments from the other
> operational communities on this, and is it prepared to change its view in
> response?
> 
> 
> *The other topics*
> 
> I support and regard as uncontroversial the inclusion of the CWG
> requirements and of caretaker budget detail being an implementation matter.
> 
> On the identically worded comments from a couple of people to move the
> Budget power for IANA from fundamental to standard bylaws, I don't think we
> should move. The whole PTI construct is going to be set out in fundamental
> bylaws. This, like all the other community powers, should be treated the
> same way.
> 
> 
> hope this helps.
> 
> cheers
> Jordan
> 
> 
> On 6 January 2016 at 15:59, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> *Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs*
>>
>> In preparation for your R*ecommendation 4 – Budget (IANA) (first reading)* discussion
>> scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC)
>> - please find attached the material to review.
>> Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in
>> advance of the call.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Mathieu, Thomas, León
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>