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

[Greg Shatan]

That's why I suggested asking the people involved....

Perhaps someone within ICANN and/or IANA can provide information...


Greg

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

>  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 <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 <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 “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: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>  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/20150603/30fcbfb7/attachment-0001.html>