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

Suzanne Woolf suzworldwide at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 19:55:38 UTC 2015 

Hi,

David and Elise are indeed the detail experts on this. But to expand on Alan's point, I'd like to suggest a clarification to Greg's question.

Greg says,
>> 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.


I agree with the principle, but I don't think the division is quite this clearcut. It's my understanding, at least, that consulting work such as was done to examine the impact on the root zone of many new gTLDs, or internal development of software to support DNSSEC, or support for RSSAC and SSAC to produce their advisories on related topics, were not undertaken directly by IANA staff-- but they were undertaken as part of careful stewardship of the IANA functions by ICANN, and they had to do with the implementation of policy by IANA staff, not the development of policy. I would think they're part of executing the IANA root zone management function, even if in the past staffing and budgeting for them was not separately accounted for.

I don't envision ICANN hiring new IANA staff to perform R&D. And it's a little arbitrary to decide what can be considered part of policy development and what's implementation. But for ICANN (or a hypothetical future operator) to properly carry out the IANA root zone management function, I would think they need to be prepared to fund and administer such activities. A reasonable dividing line might be "What activities would need to move with the IANA root zone management implementation responsibility to a new operator, and what activities could stay with the policy development institution, in the event of a separation?"


best,
Suzanne



On 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] 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150603/183fe089/attachment.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list