[DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary
Mary Uduma
mnuduma at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 3 13:32:13 UTC 2015
All,I am fine with the latest edits and wording removing "earmark" and replacing it with "kept" in the recommendation responding to comment 4.Thanks Chuck and All for the hard work.
Mary
On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 2:36 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
#yiv9816809979 #yiv9816809979 -- _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9816809979 #yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoNormal, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoNormal, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 a:link, #yiv9816809979 span.yiv9816809979MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9816809979 a:visited, #yiv9816809979 span.yiv9816809979MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9816809979 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoAcetate, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoAcetate, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraph, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraph, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 p.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, #yiv9816809979 li.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, #yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9816809979 span.yiv9816809979EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9816809979 span.yiv9816809979EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9816809979 span.yiv9816809979BalloonTextChar {}#yiv9816809979 .yiv9816809979MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9816809979 div.yiv9816809979WordSection1 {}#yiv9816809979 _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {margin-left:18.15pt;font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {margin-left:18.15pt;font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {} _filtered #yiv9816809979 {font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv9816809979 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv9816809979 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv9816809979 I am fine with the notes with the edits highlighted below. Chuck From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 5:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org)
Subject: Re: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Dear DT-O, Here are the updated responses for your review. These were developed on the DT-O call today. Please review by 12:00 UTC on Wednesday 3 June, so that they can be forwarded to the CWG and integrated into the proposal and review tool. DT-O Action Items 1· Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT OCurrent response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here.B.d is not an appropiate function for IFR at this stageDT-O recommendation: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would [Chuck Gomes] be required to approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year. And, CWG-Stewardship supports budget transparency. 2· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT ODT-O recommendation: CWG-Stewardship agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs for the first year's budget and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. 3· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT FDT-O recommendation: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D forand other special projects (e.g. DNSSEC, IPv6) which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). These would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented given to ICANN at least 9 months in advance of the start of the applicable fiscal year as part of the presentation of the proposed budget. 4· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified (IPC) – CWGCurrent response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating”, noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms.DT-O Recommendation: Budget process referred to previously (PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in advance, and that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months in advance of the fiscal year) To cover up to two years of emergency funding of PTI if needed, 1 year of operating expenses (updated on annual basis) should be kept in escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year earmarked [Chuck Gomes] for funding PTI only should be kept in open to low-risk investments. Both years of funds would be for use of funding PTI in case ICANN is unable (for some future reason) to fund PTI. Appropriateness of expenses will be handled through CCWG Accountability proceses. 5· Separation Costs: Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).Current response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly.DT-O Recommendation: Separation costs are not required at the point of transition, but this information could be requested to be developed within the first year of implementation. In first year, increase by 10% each of the following until such estimates can be provided: - 1 year of operating expenses updated on annual basis in escrow for use by PTI, and - an additional year earmarked open to low-risk investments.. Best, Grace From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 9:54 PM
To: "DT-O Mailing List (dto at icann.org)" <dto at icann.org>
Subject: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary Here are the action items from this summary that relate to DT-O that I think require more discussion on our part. Please review them and comment on this list. Chuck · Consider InternetNZ experience with regards to budget development (InternetNZ) – DT OCWG response: CWG appreciates the input provided and suggests that those steps be customized for how PTI is expected to develop its budget (as a best practice). Note that the ATRT2 also had recommendations concerning budget that might be applicable here.· CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review (CCWG) – DT OCWG response: CWG agrees with the comment of the CCWG-Accountability chairs and notes that a process should be developed possibly as part of the implementation of the proposal. The CWG should consider whether there are any elements that should be developed as part of the final proposal.· Need for a budget to support R&D should be included (ALAC) – DT O / DT FCWG response: The CWG recommends that there needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D which would need to be covered as part of PTI operations (as also recommended by DT F). It is the expectation that these would be included in the draft budget which is expected to be presented 9 months in advance as part of the presentation of the proposed budget.· PTI should be adequately funded and need to ensure that expenditures are appropriate – should be clarified (IPC) – CWGCWG response: See previous response concerning adequate funding. Setting of budget between PTI and ICANN should happen in a transparent way, but no additional say for the community unless there are indications that there is not sufficient funding or “gold plating”, noting that there are also other mechanisms available to provide input on the budget, including the CCWG mechanisms.· Separation Costs:Some comments dealt with concerns about how IANA expenses would be covered following a separation process. DT-N supports this recommendation. We look to the full CWG for a determination on where this issue is best resolved (DT N, DT L, DT O or full CWG).CWG response: Regarding operation costs, the CWG notes the RySG suggestion to have a sufficient portion of registry fees dedicated to the IANA services. The CWG also recognizes that there would be transition costs and ongoing operation costs related to the possible selection of a new operator, which are expected to be covered by ICANN. The CWG will review the proposal and clarify accordingly. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:10 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Updated public comment action items summary Dear all, Please find attached the updated summary of public comment action items as updated with the CWG responses as discussed during the calls over the last two days. Staff will be incorporating these responses in the public comment review tool (complete version). Design Teams are requested to provide any additional responses that need to be included in the public comment review tool by Monday 1 June at the latest. Thanks, Marika
_______________________________________________
dto mailing list
dto at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20150603/dc189bce/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dto
mailing list