[DT-O] Fwd: Re: FW: Updated public comment action items summary
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Thu Feb 11 08:37:40 UTC 2016
Dear Xavier,
thanks for your follow-up. I have mixed feelings on the concern of the
ICANN Board or Staff manipulating funds, as I do not know what this
actually entices. At the end of the day, someone, a body of some sort,
needs to have control of the funds. When I hear the term "manipulation
of funds", it raises a flag that this is meant as illegal manipulation
of the funds and I thought that would be reprehensible under US law. But
perhaps something else is meant?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/02/2016 23:11, Xavier J. Calvez wrote:
> Olivier,
> Thank you. I can see financial sustainability being an element that
> helps manage/mitigate risks.
> So financial sustainability and risk management. Any other objective
> that was discussed on this topic?
> I remember Paul mentioning the concern of the ICANN Board or Staff
> manipulating funds. I am suspecting “Protection (or independence) from
> ICANN’s board/staff authority” should be added to the list of objectives?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> Xavier Calvez
>
> CFO
>
> ICANN
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>
>
>
> Office: +1 (310) 301-5838
>
> Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348
>
> Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052
>
>
>
>
> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:16 PM
> To: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org
> <mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org>>, Charles Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>, "dto at icann.org <mailto:dto at icann.org>"
> <dto at icann.org <mailto:dto at icann.org>>
> Cc: "Fuhr at etno.eu <mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu>" <Fuhr at etno.eu
> <mailto:Fuhr at etno.eu>>, "jonathan.robinson at afilias.info
> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at afilias.info>"
> <jonathan.robinson at afilias.info <mailto:jonathan.robinson at afilias.info>>
> Subject: Re: [DT-O] Fwd: Re: FW: Updated public comment action items
> summary
>
> [updated Lise's email address in thread]
> [updated Jonathan's email address in thread]
>
> Dear Xavier,
>
> thanks for these thoughts. I'd say that the objective surpasses
> financial stability and actually delves into risk management. It is
> one thing to make sure PTI keep on being adequately funded both for
> its research and operational budget if ongoing ICANN budget discussion
> prevent ICANN Board approval in time for the start of a fiscal year.
> It is another thing to make sure PTI is unaffected by an ICANN bankruptcy.
>
> Of course an ICANN bankruptcy is highly unlikely, but the CCWG
> Accountability has spent 95% of its time devising processes that are
> highly unlikely to be ever used, because if the community needs to use
> some of these community powers, it means that ICANN would already be a
> very sick patient. So in the interest of safe practice, we do need to
> make sure there are robust contingency plans.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 10/02/2016 21:41, Xavier J. Calvez wrote:
>> All,
>> If I may offer thoughts:
>>
>> 1. I think Lise and Jonathan were clear yesterday in the desire to
>> preserve the intangibility of the CWG proposal at this stage. As
>> a result, the implementation path, irrespective of whether it is
>> in principle the adequate approach, is pragmatically the
>> suggested venue to address this, and probably the only one.
>> 2. If we consider this as “implementation”, I think that, rather
>> than focusing on what the solutions are, it would extremely
>> helpful to have a clear description of what the objectives are.
>> If we all understand clearly the objectives, it will be easier to
>> define solutions that address them, rather than working on
>> premises that may not be clear or shared. See example below:
>>
>>
>> Solution: escrow account
>> Objective: financial sustainability
>> If you eliminate the solution, and focus first on describing well the
>> objective, a range of solutions may be possible that may address
>> better or easier the objective.
>>
>> Happy to discuss further as desired (or to shut up if preferred :-)).
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>>
>>
>> Xavier Calvez
>>
>> CFO
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>
>>
>>
>> Office: +1 (310) 301-5838
>>
>> Fax: +1 (310) 957-2348
>>
>> Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: <dto-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> <ocl at gih.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:20 PM
>> To: Charles Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, "dto at icann.org
>> <mailto:dto at icann.org>" <dto at icann.org <mailto:dto at icann.org>>
>> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>, "'Jonathan Robinson'
>> (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>)"
>> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [DT-O] Fwd: Re: FW: Updated public comment action items
>> summary
>>
>> Dear Chuck,
>>
>> this is all well, but what are the next steps regarding this? I note
>> that the minutes of yesterday's call did not take note of this point.
>> Alan Greenberg and I have discussed this on another call today and he
>> mentioned that if we leave this to implementation, are we looking at
>> having the concept of an escrow etc. as listed in the review tool
>> inscribed in the ICANN bylaws or not? We would appreciate the
>> clarification. We are discussing this today as something was confused
>> 8 months ago and I just want to make sure we don't need to revisit
>> this... again in 8 months. :-)
>>
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 09/02/2016 22:20, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>
>>> This is very helpful information Olivier. Thanks. It seems to me
>>> that this is directly applicable to the process CWG needs to create
>>> for the development of the PTI budget.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*dto-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:09 PM
>>> *To:* dto at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* [DT-O] Fwd: Re: FW: Updated public comment action items
>>> summary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> As a kind refreshing of our minds, please find the recommendations
>>> we had sent to CWG Stewardship. Note #5 which would respond to
>>> Paul's concerns.
>>> Also as I mentioned on the call, these are captured in the Responses
>>> contained in the Public Comment Review Tool published on
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-11jun15-en.pdf
>>> Jump to #328 // Page 265.
>>>
>>> Since this was published as part of the responses to public
>>> comments, I do not think that this indicates a change of
>>> policy/proposal. Rather, we could issue an erratum.
>>>
>>> Kindest regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>
>>> *Subject: *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Re: [DT-O] FW: Updated public comment action items summary
>>>
>>> *Date: *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:36:10 +0000
>>>
>>> *From: *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com><cgomes at verisign.com>
>>>
>>> *To: *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Grace Abuhamad
>>> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org><grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, DT-O
>>> Mailing List (dto at icann.org <mailto:dto at icann.org>) <dto at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:dto at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 O*
>>>
>>> Current 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 stage
>>>
>>> *DT-O recommendation*: PTI will submit a budget to ICANN 9 months in
>>> advance, and thatICANN 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 O*
>>>
>>> *DT-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 F*
>>>
>>> *DT-O recommendation*: The CWG-Stewardship recommends that there
>>> needs to be flexibility to allow for spending related to R&D
>>> forandother 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 least9 months in advance of the start
>>> of the applicable fiscal yearas 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) – CWG*
>>>
>>> Current 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 thatICANN 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
>>> keptin escrow for use by PTI, and an additional year earmarked
>>> */[Chuck Gomes] /*for funding PTI only should be kept in open
>>> tolow-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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 O/
>>>
>>> CWG 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 O/
>>>
>>> CWG 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 F/
>>>
>>> CWG 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) – /CWG/
>>>
>>> CWG 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 <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20160211/da6137ee/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the dto
mailing list