[CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool

Grace Abuhamad grace.abuhamad at icann.org
Wed Jun 3 15:13:10 UTC 2015


Dear all, 
Here below are the DT-O responses and recommendations for the Public Comment
Review Tool

1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development
(InternetNZ) ­ DT O

DT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance,
and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal
year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency.





2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget
review (CCWG) ­ DT O

DT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the
CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a
process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the
proposal. 





3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) ­ DT O / DT F

DT-O recommendation:  The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be
flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D for other special project
(e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations
(as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget
which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the
presentation of the proposed budget.





4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are
appropriate ­ should be clarified (IPC) ­ CWG

DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit
a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at
least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year). 1 year of operating expenses
updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year
kept open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of
funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI.
Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability
process. 





5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA
expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this
recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this
issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).

DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of
transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within
the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the
following until such estimates can be provided:

           - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow
for use by PTI, and

            - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments..




Best, 
Grace

From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM
To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org)" <dto at icann.org>
Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary

Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think
require more discussion on our part.  Please review them and comment on this
list.
 
Chuck
 
·        Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development
(InternetNZ) ­ DT O

CWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those
steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best
practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget
that might be applicable here.
·        CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific
budget review (CCWG) ­ DT O

CWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs
and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the
implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are
any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal.
·        Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) ­ DT O /
DT F

CWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow
for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI
operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these
would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9
months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget.
·        PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that
expenditures are appropriate ­ should be clarified (IPC) ­ CWG

CWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of
budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no
additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is
not sufficient funding or ³gold plating², noting that there are also other
mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG
mechanisms.
·    Separation Costs:

Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered
following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look
to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT
N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).
CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion
to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA
services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and
ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator,
which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal
and clarify accordingly.
 
 
 

From:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary
 

Dear all,

 

Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as
updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last
two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment
review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any
additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review
tool by Monday 1 June at the latest.

 

Thanks,

 

Marika


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150603/8138c972/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150603/8138c972/smime-0002.p7s>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150603/8138c972/ATT00001-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150603/8138c972/smime-0003.p7s>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list