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

Sun Sep 13 17:55:08 UTC 2015

Seun

You misunderstand me and Alan.  I don't have time to clarify right now.
Will return to this when I can.

Greg

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well administrative expenses still technically falls within operational
> cost as they are not revenue neither are they non-IANA related cost (as
> Greg put it) so I am in agreement with that.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 13 Sep 2015 17:31, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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/20150913/20da8852/attachment-0001.html>