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

Sun Sep 13 18:10:28 UTC 2015

Okay now it's you and Alan; based on that and considering that I agree with
what Alan has said, I guess there is no need for further explanation.

That said, perhaps during implementation it's good to put the "terms" in
sync so when we say IANA budget, we understand it to mean PTI budget and
also that such budget does NOT include revenue in any way.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Sep 2015 18:55, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/ea0aa9e5/attachment-0001.html>