Attendees: 

Members:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Elise Lindeberg, Graeme Bunton, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Robinson, Lise Fuhr, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Paul Kane   (8) 

Participants:  Allan MacGillivary, Chuck Gomes, Jordan Carter, Leon Sanchez, Nicholas Barbantonis, Peter Van Roste, Rudi Vansnick, Sabine Meyer, Suzanne Woolf   (9)

Guests:  Jonathan Zuck 

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Kurt Rossler, Susanna Bennett, Xavier Calvez

Apologies: Donna Austin

 

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**

Agenda

1)  Confirmation from Paul Kane that his concerns have been captured accurately

2)  Suggestions for objectives for DT-O work

Notes

Chuck Gomes chairing the call

Leon Sanchez on audio only

Paul Kane -- concerns with budget is couched in stability issue for PTI (outside of the 'whim' of ICANN Board or management)

Can we implement to the satisfaction of Paul's suggestions while maintaining the CWG and CCWG proposals as they are?

Martin Boyle outlines three situations: 

  • #1 - ICANN bankruptcy
  • #2 - PTI goes rogue
  • #3 - Community vetoes budget --> this is the only situation where the caretaker budget would come into effect 

Could we build something into the Bylaws to link ICANN's responsibility for funding PTI in the case of #1?

Chuck notes that an escrow would not apply in cases of #1 and #2.

Most on the call agree that there should be some escrow or reserve funding allocated to PTI operation. 

Xavier Calvez -- ICANN handles financial stability through a reserve fund. This is an undesignated fund where costs can be allocated 
where needed. In the post-transition phase, the reserve fund will still be there to cover for ICANN (and PTI within that umbrella).  

Could a priority be put on the reserve fund for PTI funding?

Greg Shatan -- suggestion for a PTI reserve fund that is separate from ICANN's fund

How many years of funding would need to be accounted for? Paul suggests 3-5 years (but three would be fine)

Jonathan Robinson -- cannot go back to CCWG, we cannot modify CWG proposal. All we can do is give a recommendation that this is tackled at 
implementation. Will need a recommendation from DT-O to CWG and endorsement from CWG to move forward. 

Conclusions of the call: 

  • Decided that CWG/DT-O should work on multi-year funding in implementation effort
  • Agreed that , per the CWG proposal, CWG/DT-O should initiate a process for IANA budget approval in relation to ICANN budget 
    approval (including the issue discussed on this call 
    with regard to multi-year funding)
  • Suggested that this CWG/DT-O group address the question of inclusion of IANA budgeting processes into the Bylaws 

Lise Fuhr -- hesitance for what is included in the Bylaws, considering ongoing Bylaws work and need for 'shortening' and 'reorganization' work 
that needs to be done.  

Paul wants to have a reference in the Bylaws, but he is willing to let the form of this be addressed by the legal experts who will work on the Bylaws. 

Xavier notes "We need to be careful that any provision relative to this topic that the group would suggest to design will not have been 
submitted to public comment, and thus becomes a private working group opinion..."

Action Items

Transcript

Recordings

Documents

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (2/9/2016 13:36) Welcome all the this CWG Meeting regarding Budget work and progress on 9 February 2016 @ 20:00 UTC!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (13:56) Hi all

  Sabine Meyer: (13:57) hello everyone!

  Jonathan Robinson: (13:59) Hello all.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:59) hi all

  Lise Fuhr: (14:00) Good evening

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:01) :-D

  Peter Van Roste: (14:02) Good evening everyone.

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:04) hi all, sorry im a couple of minutes late

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:04) Good catch Chuck! I fogot to do that

  Jonathan Zuck: (14:05) all we did was decide Chuck would chair the call, Jordan

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:06) TOO LOUD

  Rudi Vansnick: (14:14) would that be in March ?

  Rudi Vansnick: (14:14) isn't there a finance committee meeting scheduled in Marrakech ?

  Rudi Vansnick: (14:15) ad hoc committee

  Xavier Calvez: (14:15) If Rudi is referring to the ad hoc budget working group, yes we will have a meeting. we are trying to finalize timing.

  Xavier Calvez: (14:16) and scheudle.

  Paul Kane: (14:16) The CCWG proposal captures the BUDGET (ie the quantitive expression of how much) my issue is to assist PTI achieve notional financial independence and assure the community of stable PTI operations for multiple years.

  Rudi Vansnick: (14:16) thanks Xavier

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:18) At this stage of the process, we have some significant challenges if try to make fundamental modifications.

  Xavier Calvez: (14:18) @Chuck, once all have weighed in on this point, I am happy to provide some insight on how ICANN addresses financial stability.

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:19) I feel that we need to think about how to work within the current proposal and the implementation work i.e. could the proposals from Paul be accomodated in implemetation

  Jonathan Zuck: (14:20) that has always been the intention of the caretaker budget so it comes down to the specifics of that

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:21) i apologise that I have to leave this call at 20:35 UTC - in about fifteen minutes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:22) Indeed Olivier ... This DTO  Member is as well ;-)

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:22) Its fine for CWG implementation to specify a reserver

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:22) the CCWG proposal doesn't have any influence either way

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:23) Correct

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:26) Yup we can just resuscitate the concept Chuck....and I too don't remember when the either or choice was ever made but we did all see the benefit of the caretaker budget  (perhaps we got 'distracted' there

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:27) I will look through the notes now to check

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:27) (from past DT-O calls)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:29) Also to Martin's point  if costs go up significantly  within the 3 years  then runnning cost  would be more quickly be used ...  SO  some sort of Hybrid approach 

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:29) I am not sure about the ability (legally) to ring fence money for IANA.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:29) Agree Lise

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:29) If a 3 year fund is required, it could be reviewed / topped up annually in order to be current with the tne 3 year costs.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:30) Yes  Jonathan that would be essention IMO

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:30) so the annual payments that go to IANA go there.  So we just need one year's cover?  So the money goes in up front

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:32) and if "ICANN goes bust" scenario the source of funding goes direct to PTI and not via ICANN

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:32) ?

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:32) As Jordan said in chat and now on audio, it's not clear that this proposal has any link with CCWG. This seems to be a CWG issue only

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:33) I agree with that point, largely, Jonathan - nothing that's been discussed so far has an impact on the CCWG proposal - it is accommodating of whatever detailed decisions you make as CWG or a CWG-DT

  Allan MacGillivray: (14:33) I would expect that if ICANN went bust, the fees from registries and registrars could be 'diverted' to IANA/PTI

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:33) @Allan:  yup

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:33) I think the ICANN community would make considered use of its new accountability powers long before ICANN went "broke", if it was heading that way. :-)

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:34) So, in effect, the proposal is to formally allocate a portion of the reserve fund to IANA

  Suzanne Woolf: (14:34) The question I would guess is: what cold go wrong, and how long would it take to get sorted to the point that it was no longer an emergency?

  Greg Shatan: (14:35) Allan, there would be significant legal issues if registries/registrars diverted funds contractually bound for ICANN and paid them to PTI instead..

  Greg Shatan: (14:35) It might be better to establish a PTI reserve fund, which should be "bankruptcy remote" from ICANN.

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:36) My previous question about the legality was not abot the legality of providing the funds but rather whether such funds could be legally protected from ICANN (in the event of ICANN bankrupcy for example)

  Jordan  Carter (.nz, CCWG Rapporteur): (14:38) dropped off audio - thanks everyone

  Lise Fuhr: (14:38) Thank you Jordan

  Lise Fuhr: (14:40) But we need to have a protection against PTI going rouge

  Paul Kane: (14:40) catastrophic failure is one aspect the other aspect is to ensure the PTI is financially indpendent from ICANN and also avoid any risk of any ICANN staff maniptulation.

  Sabine Meyer: (14:40) Paint it black, Lise ;)

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:41) @Greg:  and if PTI goes rogue?

  Greg Shatan: (14:41) I liked rouge better.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:42) Well too much French here in Brussels

  Jonathan Robinson: (14:42) I an sense PTI cannot go rouge because it has a board that is majority ICANN staff

  Greg Shatan: (14:42) There would need to be appropriate restrictions placed on access to and use of the funds.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:42) Sorry for the typos ;)

  Greg Shatan: (14:42) Always bet on rouge.

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (14:43) I'm not sure it would suit you, Greg

  Greg Shatan: (14:43) Just to throw another variation out there -- how about a Letter of Credit?

  Greg Shatan: (14:43) I prefer noir myself -- it matches my hair.

  Paul Kane: (14:46) Three would be fine .... I just want to assure PTI staff that they are safe and service can continue in a stable and secure manner

  Peter Van Roste: (14:46) Greg, how feasible is a 'bankruptcy remote' fund. Under Belgian law, anything that is set up with the purpose of keeping it away from the creditors would not hold. But no idea what US law looks like.

  Peter Van Roste: (14:47) (Imagine a ? at the end of that first sentence)

  Greg Shatan: (14:48) The bankruptcy remote vehicle cannot be used to defraud creditors.  THe idea is to insulate entity B from a a bankruptcy/insolvency of entity A.

  Greg Shatan: (14:49) Not to take entity A's money and "hide" it in entity B.

  Peter Van Roste: (14:50) I know a few ccTLDs that would love to pay directly into the IANA fund...

  Greg Shatan: (14:50) It seems valid to me to have PTI funded by ICANN at the outset, and an appropriate reserve fund could be part of that.

  Rudi Vansnick: (14:52) @Greg : +1

  Greg Shatan: (14:53) I think the "caretaker budget" and the "escrow/reserve/letter of credit" are solutions to two different problems.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:53) @Jonathan yes we need to include this in the implementation

  Greg Shatan: (14:53) That said, it seems like an implementation matter to me, in order to "operationalize" PTI.

  Jonathan Zuck: (14:53) agree Greg We ight actually want a reserve for the whole caretaker budget actually

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:54) agree  Jonathan

  Grace Abuhamad: (14:55) Here is the link to the notes from the DT-O meeting where these responses were discussed: https://community.icann.org/x/ZpM0Aw

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (14:55) Thanks OCL  That resonates

  Paul Kane: (14:55) Thank you Olivier - I felt it had falled between crack - delighted you found it

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (14:56) https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Public%20Comment%20Review%20Tool%20-%2010%20June%202015_clean.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1434427243000&api=v2

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (14:57) Response so Comment #328

  Jonathan Zuck: (14:57) not sure we need it in ws1

  Greg Shatan: (14:57) Seems like a CWG issue in any event.

  Greg Shatan: (14:57) Not really a CCWG issue.

  Greg Shatan: (14:58) But an implementation issue relating to how PTI is funded.

  Lise Fuhr: (14:58) As it is an implementation issue we don't need to rush it

  Lise Fuhr: (14:58) But let's get started on the discussions

  Greg Shatan: (14:58) Agree,

  Greg Shatan: (14:58) Lise

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:03) Agree with Lise. There may be limits as to what we can "insist" is included in the bylaws

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:03) indeed jOnathan... and cluncky Bylaws are not good either

  Jonathan Robinson: (15:04) We need to focus on what we can reasonably achieve within the scope of implementation

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:04) yup

  Xavier Calvez: (15:05) We need to be careful that any provision relative to this topic that the group would suggest to design will not have been submitted to public comment, and thus becomes a private working group opinion...

  Greg Shatan: (15:06) I find Paul quite fluent in English.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:06) noted Xavier

  Paul Kane: (15:06) Will do ... Thanks all

  Lise Fuhr: (15:07) Thank you Chuck for chairing and offering to help

  Greg Shatan: (15:07) Agree with those who stated that not everything is suited to go in Bylaws.  There are other ways to ensure that matters stay in place.

  Lise Fuhr: (15:07) Yes we will discuss in the CWG

  Greg Shatan: (15:08) Implementation is not generally subject to public comment, especially before it takes place.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (15:08) OK  Thanaks everyone, thanks Chuck,   Talk again soon I assume Bye for now...

  Paul Kane: (15:08) Thanks all

  Greg Shatan: (15:08) Thank you all.

  Xavier Calvez: (15:08) Agree, but it is arguable that financial stability is implementatino

  Rudi Vansnick: (15:08) bye

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (15:08) bye all

  Peter Van Roste: (15:09) Bye!

  Greg Shatan: (15:09) The concept is policy, the method is implementation.

  Sabine Meyer: (15:09) bye everyone!

  Martin Boyle, Nominet: (15:09) bye and thanks Chuck

  • No labels