[CPWG] Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets

Sun Nov 11 05:25:05 UTC 2018

Dear Olivier, Jonathan, CPWG 

Please find below my comments on the proposed ALAC comment on the draft of PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget.

The preliminary remarks should be removed as its not directly related to the PTI plan/budget, the issues raised can be communicated directly to the ICANN Staff handling IRF support.

Thanks

Regards,
Mohamed
> SUGGESTED COMMENTS BY THE ALAC
> 2 Executive Summary
> Page 5, ALAC supports the medium-term approach and planning, in conjunction with the ICANN Strategic Goals, “In FY20, work is expected to principally conclude on a multi-year effort to develop a comprehensive set of systems and tools to support protocol parameter assignment workflows. These systems will enhance the way service is delivered to the Internet standards community. Other areas of activity include continued evolution of the Root Zone Management System, enhancements to the IANA.org <http://iana.org/> website and associated tools to modernize and make information more accessible,and updates to the root zone key management software and facilities.” 
> Page 5, last sentence makes no sense and needs to be reviewed, “It is anticipated work relating to ICANN initiatives such as variant TLDs and the subs.”
> 
> 4 PTI Services Financial Overview
> Page 7, item 4.1 Budget Overview: in the table, the line entitled ''Depreciation'' gives a constant value (0.3 million USD), and yet predicts a -11% variation. This needs to be clarified, especially as current forecasts for the USD seem to indicate its positive valuation in the near future, instead of its depreciation, see this table from The Economy Forecast Agency (look at 2019 and beyond), https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020 <https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020> .
> Page 7, under item 2.1 “Travels and Meetings'' should read “I. Fewer PTI Operations Trips resulting in lower EXPENDITURES (my emphasis)'' instead of ''lower costs''. Costs are determined by travel and service providers, whereas expenditures are borne by PTI.
> Page 7, under 4, last line should read “... shows a decrease of...” (instead of ''...shows an decrease of...”).
> Page 8, under item 7, a clearer definition of “Depreciation” is required, in order to differentiate PTI/ICANN bilateral arrangements from the broader issue of depreciation in the monetary sense (see above remark).
> 
> 5 PTI Services Overview
> Page 8, item 5, PTI Services Overview ends with this: “PTI, an ICANN affiliate, performs these functions on behalf of the global Internet community.” This important point could be usefully quoted in the message from the ALAC Chair when she/he sends our comments on the current draft.
> Page 8, item 5.2 IANA Numbering Function, fourth bullet point should spell “Unicast'' with the first letter in upper case, as it is a specific and recognized addressing method, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast> .
> 
6 PTI Services and Operation Plan :
There should an annex or addendum which lists the detailed breakdown of direct and indirect PTI costs which was carried out by ICANN different departments ( e.g communications, Governance support, ..etc ), its included in the table total figures under “Professional services”, for the sake of transparency the detailed breakdowns should be included in the budget and budget.
> END QUOTE

> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs at dyalog.net <mailto:jjs at dyalog.net>>
> Date: Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>, <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>
> Cc: At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net <mailto:mbashir at mbash.net>>
> 
> 
> Hello Alan,
> here is my contribution (below). Please let me know if this meets with the approval of the ALAC.
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> BEGIN QUOTE
> Draft PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget
> Comments by Jean-Jacques Subrenat, ALAC Representative to the IFR
> 10 October 2018
> 
> PRELIMINARY REMARKS
> On 12 September 2018, ALAC designated me as its Representative on the IFR. Since then, I have not received any information from Staff about the composition, agenda or calendar of the IFR.
> 
> On 2 October 2018, the ALAC asked me, as well as Mohamed El Bashir who likewise served on the ICG on behalf of the ALAC, to ''review the draft the IANA/PTI FY20 Draft plan and budget and: 1. Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment; and 2. If so, formulate a comment for the review of the ALAC (as well as any justification you think may be needed to help the ALAC understand).''
> 
> The first question above (''Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment'') deserves a quick response: yes. It is worth remembering that, right from the inception of the ICG, I took great pains to include a truly multi-stakeholder approach in the ICG process, its final report and recommendations. I nominated Mohamed to be Vice-Chair of the ICG, and helped his election to that important position. There was push-back about At-Large involvement from several ICG colleagues, who viewed the user community as ''less directly affected'' than the contracted parties, and would have liked us to be mere Observers. But after this difficult beginning, the participation and contribution of ALAC was accepted, indeed appreciated. Against this background, it is recommended that the ALAC comment on the proposed Draft PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget. This point should be made in the email with which the ALAC Chair will forward the ALAC comment.
> 
> When forwarding the suggested comments by the ALAC (below, if they are approved by the ALAC), the ALAC Chair should remark that, at this point, our Representative has not received any information from Staff about the composition, agenda or calendar of the IFR.
> 
> SUGGESTED COMMENTS BY THE ALAC
> 2 Executive Summary
> Page 5, ALAC supports the medium-term approach and planning, in conjunction with the ICANN Strategic Goals, “In FY20, work is expected to principally conclude on a multi-year effort to develop a comprehensive set of systems and tools to support protocol parameter assignment workflows. These systems will enhance the way service is delivered to the Internet standards community. Other areas of activity include continued evolution of the Root Zone Management System, enhancements to the IANA.org <http://iana.org/> website and associated tools to modernize and make information more accessible,and updates to the root zone key management software and facilities.”
> Page 5, last sentence makes no sense and needs to be reviewed, “It is anticipated work relating to ICANN initiatives such as variant TLDs and the subs.”
> 
> 4 PTI Services Financial Overview
> Page 7, item 4.1 Budget Overview: in the table, the line entitled ''Depreciation'' gives a constant value (0.3 million USD), and yet predicts a -11% variation. This needs to be clarified, especially as current forecasts for the USD seem to indicate its positive valuation in the near future, instead of its depreciation, see this table from The Economy Forecast Agency (look at 2019 and beyond), https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020 <https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020> .
> Page 7, under item 2.1 “Travels and Meetings'' should read “I. Fewer PTI Operations Trips resulting in lower EXPENDITURES (my emphasis)'' instead of ''lower costs''. Costs are determined by travel and service providers, whereas expenditures are borne by PTI.
> Page 7, under 4, last line should read “... shows a decrease of...” (instead of ''...shows an decrease of...”).
> Page 8, under item 7, a clearer definition of “Depreciation” is required, in order to differentiate PTI/ICANN bilateral arrangements from the broader issue of depreciation in the monetary sense (see above remark).
> 
> 5 PTI Services Overview
> Page 8, item 5, PTI Services Overview ends with this: “PTI, an ICANN affiliate, performs these functions on behalf of the global Internet community.” This important point could be usefully quoted in the message from the ALAC Chair when she/he sends our comments on the current draft.
> Page 8, item 5.2 IANA Numbering Function, fourth bullet point should spell “Unicast'' with the first letter in upper case, as it is a specific and recognized addressing method, seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast> .
> END QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 10 octobre 2018 à 15:02:52, Alan Greenberg (alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>) a écrit:
> 
>> Gentlemen, it has been a week. 
>> 
>> You can find out policy page at 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Draft+PTI+and+IANA+FY20+Operating+Plan+and+Budgets <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Draft+PTI+and+IANA+FY20+Operating+Plan+and+Budgets>. 
>> 
>> Can you both please review ASAP! 
>> 
>> Alan 
>> 
>> At 02/10/2018 09:50 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: 
>> >Mohamed and Jean-Jacques, 
>> > 
>> >As the two people most informed about IANA and PTI, I would 
>> >appreciate it if the two of you could review the IANA/PTI FY20 Draft 
>> >plan and budget and: 
>> > 
>> >1. Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment; and 
>> > 
>> >2. If so, formulate a comment for the review of the ALAC (as well as 
>> >any justification you think may be needed to help the ALAC understand. 
>> > 
>> >Perhaps related to this, I overheard something last week (when I was 
>> >in LA for the EPDP meeting) that implied that IANA was not able to 
>> >take all the measures it should regarding security and stability due 
>> >to constrained budgets. I may well have mis-heard or misunderstood, 
>> >but thought that I should mention it. 
>> > 
>> >Regards, Alan 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181110/69be2fec/attachment-0001.html>