[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Greg,

Based on what you've written below it seem to imply there is difference
between IANA budget and PTI budget. This will definitely make it no longer
a small matter (as Chuck puts it).
If you say PTI/IANA budget include IANA revenue then you are simply
referring to ICANN revenue. Does IANA generate revenue other than following
instruction?

It's like saying because a technical department of an organisation is the
actual implementer of service then the organisation revenue generation be
accrued to it. I am not an accountant, but my technical reasoning don't
think it's logically correct. I think the best that can be presented under
IANA/PTI is operating budget.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Sep 2015 15:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> It was my understanding that the IANA budget would also embrace
> IANA-related expenses (and revenues?) that were not incurred (received?) by
> PTI.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said, it is not a big deal.  It just seemed to me that the IANA
>> budget and PTI budget are essentially the same thing under our proposal so
>> I was just curious as to why the edit was made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 9:59 AM
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Cc:* 'Thomas Rickert'
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure I recall the motivation (if it was discussed at all) for
>> this change. The way I read it, is that the IANA Budget review is by
>> definition also or in effect a PTI budget review and therefore it’s not
>> necessary to say both.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest we submit the comment as currently drafted and then, if for any
>> reason we wish to re-introduce this “/PTI budget” component, we submit it
>> as a minor revision.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com <cgomes at verisign.com>]
>> *Sent:* 11 September 2015 17:30
>> *To:* jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>
>> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>
>>
>>
>> I like the edits made and thank Sidley for doing this.  I do have one
>> minor question: under item 1, why was PTI deleted in this sentence: “It
>> is anticipated that the IANA/PTI budget Budget review will include a
>>
>> consultation process with IANA customers.”?  Like I said, this is not a
>> big issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 7:20 AM
>> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert
>> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see attached from Sidley. This addresses the feedback and
>> discussion from the CWG call yesterday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lise and I have discussed this version and we are satisfied that we can
>> submit this to the CCWG public comment as is.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, as discussed yesterday, we will wait 24 hours (until 12h00 UTC,
>> Saturday 12 September) before doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you do have additional comment or input, please do provide ASAP,
>> ideally by 23h59 UTC today (Friday 11 Sep) and, in any event, no later than
>> 12h00 UTC tomorrow (12 Sep).
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan & Lise
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com
>> <sflanagan at sidley.com>]
>> *Sent:* 11 September 2015 04:02
>> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [client com] CWG Comment Letter
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Client Committee,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is a revised draft of the comment letter which reflects the
>> discussion today, along with a few clean up edits.  We’ve attached a clean
>> copy and a redline against the Tuesday draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Holly and Sharon
>>
>>
>>
>> *SHARON* *FLANAGAN*
>> Partner
>>
>> Sidley Austin LLP
>> 555 California Street
>> Suite 2000
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>> +1 415 772 1271
>> sflanagan at sidley.com
>> www.sidley.com
>>
>> [image: http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]
>> <http://www.sidley.com/> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
>> privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150913/6ce378aa/attachment.html>