[CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG IANA Budget Call 9 Feb 16 Background Message

Mon Feb 8 23:52:24 UTC 2016

Since the call is open to anyone in the CWG, I have taken the liberty of
forwarding the email below.

From:  "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date:  Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:40 PM
To:  "Paul M Kane (Paul.Kane at communitydns.net)"
<Paul.Kane at communitydns.net>, Paul Kane <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>,
"allan.macgillivray at cira.ca" <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, Bart Boswinkel
<bart.boswinkel at icann.org>, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon at sidn.nl>, Jordan
Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, "'Jonathan Zuck' (jzuck at actonline.org)"
<jzuck at actonline.org>, "'Jonathan Robinson' (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com)"
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Lise Fuhr <fuhr at etno.eu>
Cc:  Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Subject:  CWG IANA Budget Call 9 Feb 16 Background Message

I hope I have included everyone who has been invited to the CWG IANA Budget
Call for 9 February 2016 at 20:00 UTC.  I suspect I have included some who
were not invited; if so, please ignore the following.

The call is organized so that the main drafters in the CWG (Chuck) and CCWG
(Jordan/Jonathan) can provide an update to the CWG members about the
compromise on the IANA budget recommendation.
Provided below is the background and objectives of the CWG IANA Budget Call
scheduled for 9 February 2016 at 20:00 UTC.

Background
On 4 February Paul Kane sent a message to Lise Fuhr that contained the
following concerns about the CCWG Accountability third proposal with regard
to the IANA budget:
·        ³The goal must always be stable operation of the independent
(affiliate) PTI company so the part that is _missing_ now is:  the need to
ring-fence say 3 or 5 years worth of operating budget in an escrow style
account.
·        ³There may be an attempt to push that to implementation phase but
being in the Bylaws is more appropriate as it is a legal obligation to
support PTI.
·        ³The PTI staff need to know/be assured they are outside the
financial manipulation of the ICANN Board and have the resources to
undertake their role for 3/5 years .... also if there is to be a change of
operator they need to have the funds to facilitate the change and also for
the new operator to know that initial funding is available.²

Here is my interpretation of the changes to the CCWG proposal that Paul
thinks are missing:
1.      Putting aside an amount of money for funding PTI for 3 to 5 years
2.      Adding to the Bylaws a requirement to guarantee 3 to 5 years of PTI
funding
3.      Including in the IANA budget funds to transition the IANA functions
from PTI to a new operator if needed.

Design Team O (IANA Budget) discussed the possibility of ideas like creating
an escrow account to cover multiyear funding of IANA but did not
specifically recommend  that.

Paul  Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect in any way.

In the CCWG 3rd proposal, the IANA budget is discussed in paragraphs 15 to
22; here are the elements of the CCWG 3rd proposal that I think are
particularly pertinent to Paul¹s concerns:
a.      ³Should the power be used to reject the annual IANA Functions
Budget, a caretaker budget would be enacted implemented (details regarding
the caretaker budget are currently under development as noted above for the
ICANN Budget). The CCWG-Accountability also recommends that the caretaker
budget approach be embedded in the Fundamental Bylaws, including the
responsibility of the CFO to establish the caretaker budget in accordance
with the defined approach.² (unnumbered paragraph after paragraph 19)
b.     ³The CCWG-Accountability acknowledges that the CWG-Stewardship (or a
successor implementation group) is required to develop a proposed process
for the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget establishment and review.
This process will be a key input for the implementation of this specific
power.² (paragraph 20)
c.      ³The CWG-Stewardship may wish to detail the planning process by
which the IANA Budget is established as part of its implementation programme
of work, including the level of detail required to be provided for community
input and the timeframes for consultations and approvals.  The
CCWG-Accountability limits its requirements to those set out in this
Recommendation.² (paragraph 21)
d.     ³. . . The process must also be implemented in such a way as to
ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions, and that
ensures the proper delivery of contractual service levels to the respective
operational communities.² (paragraph 22)

Chuck¹s Analysis

In my opinion, the CCWG proposal ensures stable operation of the IANA
functions in these ways:  Developing a process for establishment & review of
the IANA Functions Operations-specific budget (paragraph b above) and
development of an IANA caretaker budget that would be implemented if the
IANA budget is rejected (paragraphs a & c above).  I think this is in lieu
of ring-fencing IANA funding for 3-5 years as Paul suggests.  To address
Paul¹s item 2 above, should these be included in the bylaws?

Question for Paul:  is the development of an IANA operations budget combined
with the development and implementation of an IANA caretaker budget
sufficient to address your concern for stable funding of IANA services?  If
not, I believe a change would have to be made to the CWG Stewardship
requirement, which I think would require full CWG Stewardship approval.

To my knowledge, the CWG Stewardship has never decided to ³detail the
planning process by which the IANA Budget is established as part of its
implementation programme of work, including the level of detail required to
be provided for community input and the timeframes for consultations and
approvals² (see item c above).

I don¹t believe there is anything in the CWG Stewardship proposal or in the
CCWG proposal that requires that the IANA budget include funds to transition
the IANA functions from PTI to a new operator if needed.  Is this a
requirement that we should add?

Call Objectives

Decide whether:
A.     The requirement for the development of an IANA operations budget
combined with the development and implementation of an IANA caretaker budget
sufficient to ensure stability of IANA services funding or should we add to
the CWG requirements that
B.     The CWG Stewardship should ³detail the planning process by which the
IANA Budget is established as part of its implementation programme of work,
including the level of detail required to be provided for community input
and the timeframes for consultations and approvals² (see item c above).
C.     Requirements of the IANA budget and IANA caretaker budget development
processes should be in the Bylaws.

References
       i.            Email summarizing the outcome of the budget agreements
between the two groups:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-January/00
9976.html
       i.            Annex 04  Details on Recommendation #4: Ensuring
Community Involvement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers
from the CCWG 3rd draft proposal (attached)  This contains the paragraphs
referred to above.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160208/0d2aad41/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CWG IANA Budget Call 9 Feb 16 Background Message.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21649 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160208/0d2aad41/CWGIANABudgetCall9Feb16BackgroundMessage-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160208/0d2aad41/smime-0001.p7s>