Transcript

Transcript DT-O Meeting 2 June.doc

Transcript DT-O Meeting 2 June.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7gqquw3y51/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-dto-02jun15-en .mp3

Notes and 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 that ICANN would 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 for other 
  special project (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 9 months in advance 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) – 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 that ICANN would approve it at least 3 months 
  in advance of the fiscal year)
• 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..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 process

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..

Following actions: 

• Grace to send to DT-O 
• Responses required by 12:00 UTC on Wednesday 3 June
• Chuck to send final to CWG-Stewardship 

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (6/2/2015 14:17) Welcome to the DT-O Meeting on Tuesday, 2 June.

  Brenda Brewer: (14:28) Olivier is on phone line.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:31) this cal'clases with toad as CCWG Cal so I will only be in AC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:32) should read this call clashes

  Mary Uduma: (14:48) I have no objection to the suggestion of  3 years upfront funding.  I could start as take off funding.

  Mary Uduma: (14:49) It* or take off Grant and would be rolled over year by year.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:49) 2

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:50) two years reserve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:50) in escrow

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:52) yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:52) yup

  Mary Uduma: (14:55) I am suggesting three years take off grant .

  Mary Uduma: (14:55) Let the money be witth PTI and not with ICANN

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:55) yes. escrow

  Mary Uduma: (14:55) Yes

  Mary Uduma: (14:57) That means the operting budget for PTI

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:59) 2 years is enough IMO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:59) me. HUMBLE !!!!

  Mary Uduma: (15:01) The money will not be idle but would be invested.  I

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:02) fixed

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:02) no interest

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:02) in AU at least

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:03) haha! ok

  Mary Uduma: (15:03) The amount set aside would be invested in bonds and interest earned on it. 

  Mary Uduma: (15:03) I can live with it if we all agree.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:04) money IMO. should NIT be tied up in any investments. but rather be on call / available from escrow

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:04) I could agree to 1 year in escrow and 1 earmarked open to investments

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:04) NOT

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:05) if you need access you need access

  Mary Uduma: (15:05) Why? @ CLO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:05) access to the funds needs to be on call Mary

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:06) to ensure continuing and stable'opps

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:06) investments can loose money too

  Mary Uduma: (15:06) Even call money can yeild some form of interest in my environment.  I do not know about yours

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:07) escrow also ensures that access can be granted where an investment or even access to on call must have agreement

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:08) low risk yes

  Mary Uduma: (15:12) I do not understand what InternetZA is asking for.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:12) +1 to chuck's suggestion

  Mary Uduma: (15:15) I think we already covered all that  in the recommedations.

  Mary Uduma: (15:16) @ Chuck +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:16) nope all good

  Mary Uduma: (15:17) Transperancy already in the recommendations, so we can refer to those

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:17) OK

  Mary Uduma: (15:20) @ Grace +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:21) r&d is essential

  Mary Uduma: (15:21) Is R&D part of PTI mandate? Or is this for ICANN?

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:22) I'm not sure Mary

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:27) way to far IMO

  Mary Uduma: (15:28) Yes Chuck

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:29) and if the community aim in veto was to pressure.  ICANN /Board.  then it should not be able to effect IANA Operations in a negative way thus my support for the escrow etc.,

  Mary Uduma: (15:29) +1 @ CLO

  Mary Uduma: (15:46) sounds good to me.

  Mary Uduma: (15:51) I think the stability we were looking for in the recommdation is now enbedded in the Scrow + Investment funds.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:52) thank you chuck... thanks everyone talk again soon

  Mary Uduma: (15:53) Thanks and bye.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:53) in synch in the end OCL

  Mary Uduma: (15:54) Will "Provide" instead of earmark.

  Mary Uduma: (15:55) better?