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

[Alan Greenberg]

There will be PTI overhead administrative expenses that might not technically be considered IANA, but other than that, they should be the same.

Alan 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On September 13, 2015 11:12:43 AM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150913/4ec3ab98/attachment-0001.html>