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

[Greg Shatan]

I don't disagree with what's just been said.  However, because we are
creating a separate legal entity, this affects the questions about budget
which are currently pending.  This is really two questions:

1.  What is the budget of Post-Transition IANA, Inc.: It would be rather
peculiar to say the least to have a corporate entity that did not have a
discrete budget.  This is the budget of PTI, Inc., not a general
"IANA-related" budget.  This will need to include mundane things like rent
and paper-clips -- though this will probably be an exercise in allocating a
percentage of certain line items of ICANN's budget to IANA (fun stuff like
G&A, FF&E, HR support, etc., etc.) rather than creating a truly de novo
budget for PTI, Inc.

2.  What is the budget for ICANN to support IANA-related matters.:  What
will ICANN spend on IANA-related matters, outside of the items on the PTI,
Inc. budget?  This is most decidedly not the budget of PTI, Inc. (unless
you do some fancy footwork, and have PTI "pay" for this through a service
contract).  Presumably, these are expenses that ICANN would bear even if
PTI's functions were outsourced to Acme Anvils, Inc.

R&D efforts, such as " 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"
would be on the ICANN budget, but not on PTI's budget.

Both questions need to be answered with reasonable specificity, which has
not been done before.

At this juncture, it may be enough to have these on one budget.  At some
point (soon), they will need to be parsed out.

Greg

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  I think Suzanne said it pretty well: “they need to be prepared to fund
> and administer such activities”.  That is really all we are talking about
> here.  The possibility of an unanticipated need for non-operational
> expenses, non-recurring expenses exists and all we are recommending is that
> the ability to fund any such expenses should be expected.  Moreover, any
> such expenses would be proposed in the PTI Budget approval process so it is
> not as if they are being added to the budget now.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Suzanne Woolf
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:56 PM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for
> Public Comment Review Tool
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150603/8a852037/attachment-0001.html>