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

[Alan Greenberg]

I have no specifics. David Conrad is the only 
person regularly contributing that may have some 
insight. I don't know to what extent he pays attention to every CWG e-mail!

My gut feeling is this item is probably not huge, 
but also that it could vary heavily from year to year.

It would be correct that this work is not done 
entirely within IANA, but I am quite sure that 
some will be and at times there will need to be 
budgets for consulting, external contract work and such.

I find it fascinating that we are spending our 
time on conjecture when we could simply ask the people involved.

Alan

At 03/06/2015 01:14 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>I think Item 3 needs to be clarified:
>
>3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DDT 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.
>
>Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can 
>provide information on how much "R&D" or 
>innovation development goes on within the IANA 
>Functions group (which I envision as Elise 
>Gerich and her reports), and how much of that 
>goes on elsewhere within ICANN or outside ICANN 
>(e.g., IETF).  Perhaps this could be answered 
>with regard to the examples given (DNSSEC and 
>IPv6); I would assume the IANA Functions group 
>was consulted at points in development and 
>particularly with regard to deployment, but it 
>was not my impression that these were 
>"researched and developed" within the IANA team.
>
>Unless there are good reasons to change, we 
>should follow and fund the current model for 
>division of labor on development/innovation vs. 
>implementation.  It would help to clarify this, 
>and perhaps tighten up the language a bit, to 
>avoid the impression that IANA is going to become a big-time R&D shop.
>
>Greg
>
>On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Grace Abuhamad 
><<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>grace.abuhamad at icann.org> wrote:
>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 <<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>cgomes at verisign.com>
>Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM
>To: "DT-O Mailing List 
>(<mailto:dto at icann.org>dto at icann.org)" <<mailto: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 “gold plating”, 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:<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[<mailto: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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150603/c1e15234/attachment.html>