[CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jun 4 03:51:47 UTC 2015
Greg, I do not follow your #2. ICANN will
certainly need to budget for these expenses, but
why "these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent")"?
Everything related to IANA should be within PTI,
other than services that under contract, it gets from ICANN.
If IANA needs work done by external contractors,
certainly the funding will ultimately come from
ICANN, but it should be channelled through IANA.
At 03/06/2015 11:27 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm not
>surprised that IANA staff has been directly
>involved in development and innovation for the
>systems that the IANA staff uses; that makes perfect sense.
>The examples that were given earlier, though,
>were DNSSEC and IPv6, where I expressed
>skepticism that these were the result of R&D
>carried out by the IANA staff (which is not to
>say they were completely uninvolved). Perhaps
>they were just inapposite examples. More
>on-target examples, such as the ones you gave,
>might have taken this exchange down a different path (or no path at all).
>In terms of budgeting for the near future, it
>sounds like appropriate funds would need to be
>allocated for development and innovation by PTI,
>due to (1) the plan "to impose a vast array of
>new service level requirements for the IANA
>functions (and not just naming-related
>functions) that will need to be monitored",
>since "In order to meet these new requirements,
>non-trivial amounts of software development
>will" need to "be undertaken directly by IANA
>staff" and (2) the replacement of aging systems.
>âMy overall takeaway then is:
>1. PTI, as a separate corporate entity housing
>the IANA staff, will need a discrete budget.
>2. ICANN will also need to budget for
>IANA-related expenses and activities carried out
>by employees and resources other than the IANA
>staff, since these will remain within ICANN (the "corporate parent").
>3. PTI will need to budget for development and
>procurement relating to replacing aging software
>systems and to meeting any new requirements put
>in place as part of the transition, and for any
>other expenses relating to changes to the IANA staff's technical environment.
>4. ICANN will also need to budget for R&D
>relating to innovations relating to inputs to
>the IANA function (along the lines of DNSSEC and
>IPv6), which are not developed primarily by IANA staff.
>On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:58 PM, David Conrad
><<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:
>Apologies for the slow response a bit buried in stuff right now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship