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

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Thu Jun 4 09:59:07 UTC 2015

Hey All,
I have been following this conversation although not closely. My suggestion would be the following.
In the formation documents including the contract between PTI and ICANN we specify the following budgetary forms:

·         Category 1: The IANA Operational Budget

o   This is the KTLO (Keeping the lights on) budget used to deliver the current IANA services. Mostly this would be an OpEx budget.

o   This budget can be baselined and increased at a percentage above inflation or some other useful measure if needed (Not sure if that is needed)

o   ICANN could be compelled to provide this budget as part of its arrangement with the PTI

·         Category 2: The IANA Projects Budget

o   This is the standard normal business projects such as the updating of software, hardware replacements like the HSM replacements recently. This would likely be OpEx focused but include some CapEx.

o   Again this can be a baselined amount as its likely some internal project work will always be going on in IANA with regards to continuous imprement.

·         Category 3: The IANA Special Projects Budget

o   This can be set at a nominal figure. If a single project is forecasted at over [x]m USD then it is considered a ‘Special Project’ and could possibly go through some form of community review?

o   I would think that requests of this nature would be CapEx focused.

Not sure if that’s a workable solution to get a stable planning and forecasting solution in place while maintain some cost control ability, I have yet to finish my coffee this morning!


From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:28 AM
To: David Conrad
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-O recommendations/responses for Public Comment Review Tool


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. ​

​My 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 <david.conrad at icann.org<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>> wrote:

Apologies for the slow response — a bit buried in stuff right now.

I'm going on what Suzanne said, which is that the consulting that has been done to date to support IANA was "not undertaken directly by IANA staff."

I'm not sure that's accurate.

Historically, perhaps the largest expenditure related to IANA in its history was the development of the facilities and processes necessary to DNSSEC-sign the root.  This was definitely undertaken directly by IANA staff and it was millions of dollars in both capex and opex (and I believe continues to be a very significant opex outlay — those two secure Key Management Facilities are expensive, but Elise or Xavier would know for sure).

There was also the development of the Root Zone automation, which was performed, in part, by IANA staff (or contractors employed at the direction of IANA staff).  On going updates and modifications to that system, and in particular, changes necessary to match whatever the community comes up with for the future of root management will be at the direction of IANA staff.

In addition, there are a number of aging software systems currently in use by IANA staff that are (or were) slated to be replaced, e.g., the PEN request/management system.

Looking forward, the community appears to want 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.  In order to meet these new requirements, non-trivial amounts of software development will be necessary. Presumably this would be undertaken directly by IANA staff.

So while I might agree that research-related expenditures are "not undertaken directly by IANA staff", I do not think it accurate to state development is not undertaken by IANA staff.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150604/6590818d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list