Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2lzq8ooa38/

The audio recording is available here: 

Proposed Agenda:

1.  Roll call

2.  Confirm agenda

3.  Discuss Section 22.4 (b) – (g) in the proposed revised Bylaws

4.  Discuss Annex F, IANA Caretaker Budget Principles, on pages 211-213 (overall pages 214-217) of the redline version of the Bylaws 

5.  Discuss PTI Budget Dependencies –Draft ICANN Bylaws

6. Possible DT-O or CWG comments on the Draft FY17 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget

7.  AOB

8.  Next meeting(s)

Notes

1. Roll Call 

All in Adobe Connect room. 

2.  Confirm agenda

Items #3 and #4 are important and need to be closed today. Xavier will join 30 min into the call. 

3.  Discuss Section 22.4 (b) – (g) in the proposed revised Bylaws

• Refer to email message sent by Chuck on Monday, 11 April
• Note that we need to provide feedback on this section to the full CWG today.
• There will be separate budgets for ICANN and for IANA. 
• Suggestion to fix the term "ICANN's IANA department" to confirm the intention that the ICANN and IANA budgets will separate. The term was inserted 
  into the CWG-Stewardship proposal to ensure coverage across the board (without full information about how 
  the budgeting processes would work), but the implementation planning has now clarified how the budgeting process will evolve. 
• DT-O agrees that IANA needs to have finished its budget planning in advance of the ICANN budget comment period. The "9 months" terminology 
  is in the CWG proposal, but DT-O agrees that 9 months is too much. To modify the Bylaw text, the intention is that the 
  IANA budget would be submitted for PTI Board approval prior to the submission of the ICANN Budget for ICANN Board approval but no later 
  than [75 days (time is not fixed, it just need to be more than 45 days)] prior to the commencement of each fiscal year. 
• Xavier has some language for a re-written Bylaw that he will send to the group. DT-O is satisfied with Xavier's text and would prefer to use that text for the Bylaws. 
• Flag for the Bylaws Drafting team: the use of the term "PTI" may change in future, so this needs to be considered for the drafting ofthe Bylaws. 
• Proposed text from Xavier (Elise is ok with the text as well): Separately and addition to the general ICANN planning process, PTI shall prepare 
  and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions for the upcoming planning cycle. Such proposed 
  operating plan and budget shall provide appropriate information to enable a consultation process allowing for broad community engagement and 
  input, including appropriate steps for addressing such community input. The proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions, resulting 
  from such process, shall be submitted to ICANN as input prior to and for the purpose of being included in the proposed ICANN operating plan and 
  budget, itself then subject to a broad consultation process, including appropriate steps for addressing community input.

Action (all): Group to review notes and Xavier's proposed language for submission to the Bylaws Coordination Group by 23:59 UTC today. 

4.  Discuss Annex F, IANA Caretaker Budget Principles, on pages 211-213 (overall pages 214-217) of the redline version of the Bylaws 

• Refer to email message sent by Chuck on Tuesday, 12 April
• Note Chuck’s personal comments sent to the full CWG regarding paragraph 1.f of Annex F.
• We are trying to prevent ICANN from implementating actions that are controversial. 

Action (Xavier): Xavier will send a redrafted version to the mailing list.  

5.  Discuss PTI Budget Dependencies –Draft ICANN Bylaws

• See message forwarded by Chuck from Sharon Flanagan on 12 April.
• We need to provide feedback on this to the full CWG today.
• #6 and #7 are resolved by agenda items #3 and #4 for DT-O call and Xavier's language.
• For item #3: this requirement for the level of detail is a carry-over from prior work on the ICANN budget. This does not need to be specified in the Bylaws. See Xavier's proposed language.  
• Item #4 is also covered by the text in Xavier's language. 

6. Possible DT-O or CWG comments on the Draft FY17 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget

• Discuss the response from Xavier regarding clarification comments in the draft sent by Chuck (sent by Xavier on 12 April)
• Next steps

7.  AOB

8.  Next meeting(s)

Action (all): respond to doodle poll with availability for next meeting(s). 

Action Items

• Action (all): Group to review notes and Xavier's proposed language for submission to the Bylaws Coordination Group by 23:59 UTC today.   
• Action (Xavier): Xavier will send a redrafted version to the mailing list.  
• Action (all): respond to doodle poll with availability for next meeting(s). 

Chat Transcript

Grace Abuhamad: (4/13/2016 14:59) All -- The DT-O call may start 5min late since most DT-O members are stuck on another call at the moment.

  Chuck Gomes: (15:01) Hello all. 

  Paul Kane: (15:02) Hello

  Mary Uduma: (15:07) Hello Everyone

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:11) DT-O recommendations will likely go to Chairs and then directly to Bylaws Group due to the time constraints today. The CWG will be copied, but may not have time for formal approval.

  elise.gerich (epg): (15:16) Sorry, joining late.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:19) I think the Bylaws text comes from the CWG-Stewardship proposal

  Paul Kane: (15:20) Sure - we know more now... hence the need to correct

  Paul Kane: (15:20) now

  Paul Kane: (15:22) :-)

  Paul Kane: (15:22) Agree

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:24) Is this suggestion accurate? This could be what we deliver to the Bylaws Coordination Group: Suggestion to delete the term "ICANN's IANA department" to confirm the intention that the ICANN and IANA budgets will separate. The term was inserted into the CWG-Stewardship proposal to ensure coverage across the board (without full information about how the budgeting processes would work), but the implementation planning has now clarified how the budgeting process will evolve.

  Paul Kane: (15:24) Can remember but didn't CWG ask  that the PTI budget was to be prior

  Alan Greenberg: (15:25) The 9 month specified in the CWG report was not realistic in my mind.

  Alan Greenberg: (15:26) At the time, there were only so many battles to fight. This is not one I chose to pick on.

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:26) I remember 1 month approved budget

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:26) I will check the proposal now

  Paul Kane: (15:27) Yes - agree delete ICANN IANA Departmewnt

  Paul Kane: (15:27) Agree Grace

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:27) This is the text from the proposal: "PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review."

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:28) Chuck's comment is accurate in terms of the proposal.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:29) Xavier was not involved in the Bylaws drafting

  Paul Kane: (15:32) Can we ask Elsie and Xavier what time line works for them becasue 9 months is too much imho

  elise.gerich (epg): (15:32) Yes, Xavier and I are working on the process and will share our suggestion

  elise.gerich (epg): (15:34) @Paul we have been looking at the timeline as part of the process development -- the goal is to provide sufficient time to develop, review, and adopt

  Paul Kane: (15:38) Thanks - Elise....

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:38) I copied the CWG proposal text in the chat above in case you need to refer to it

  Paul Kane: (15:38) Say [75] days

  Paul Kane: (15:39) Yes .... earlier

  Paul Kane: (15:49) in square brackets - 75 days is not fixed - just more than 45 days

  Mary Uduma: (15:50) I do not understand why we are changing the 9 months eariler recommended

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:51) Is this summary of the discussion correct? It's in the notes: The "9 months" terminology is in the CWG proposal. DT-O agrees that 9 months is too much. To modify the Bylaw text, the intention is that the IANA budget would be submitted for Board approval prior to the submission of the ICANN Budget but no later than [75 days (time is not fixed, it just need to be more than 45 days)] prior to the commencement of each fiscal year. IANA needs to have finished its budget planning in advance of the ICANN budget comment period.

  Paul Kane: (15:52) Elise - the PTI Board approve the Budget then the approved budget is then submitted to ICANN Board for approval/payment

  Paul Kane: (15:53) Grace - that works - thanks

  elise.gerich (epg): (15:53) @Paul  agree with what you wrote - sorry if that is not what came across when I spoke

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:53) Yes we can hear you

  Xavier Calvez: (15:53) can you hear me?

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:53) yes we can hear you

  Chuck Gomes: (15:53) We are hearing you Xavier.

  Grace Abuhamad: (15:53) It appears that you can hear us

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (15:53) but you do not seem to be able to hear us

  Chuck Gomes: (15:53) I don't think you can hear us.

  elise.gerich (epg): (15:53) we are verbally saying that we can hear you

  Paul Kane: (15:55) Agree Xavier

  Paul Kane: (15:57) .... submitted for PTI Board approval with sufficient time to be approved ....

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:02) THX XAVIER

  Xavier Calvez: (16:03) @Paul: I think that makes sense

  Xavier Calvez: (16:04) I agree it should be PTI board vs ICANN Board.

  Paul Kane: (16:04) Thanks

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:04) After it's sent to DT-O, I can include it as feedback for Bylaws Coordination Group

  Xavier Calvez: (16:04) Separately and addition to the general ICANN planning process, ICANN shall prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions for the upcoming planning cycle. Such proposed operating plan and budget shall provide appropriate information to enable a consultation process allowing for broad community engagement and input, including appropriate steps for addressing such community input. The proposed operating plan and budget for the IANA functions, resulting from such process, shall be submitted to ICANN as input prior to and for the purpose of being included in the proposed ICANN operating plan and budget, itself then subject to a broad consultation process, including appropriate steps for addressing community input.

  Paul Kane: (16:05) ...... PTI shall prepare and submit to the PTI Board a proposed operating plan and ......

  Alan Greenberg: (16:07) I cannot make that deadline but I will trust my colleagues (in this case ;-) )

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:07) Paul I included your correction in the Xavier text version in the notes.

  Paul Kane: (16:07) Thanks Grace

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:08) Good point, Thank you Xavier

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond: (16:08) I agree with Xavier. Let us be clear that I hope this is not over & done with. Amendments will be possible

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:08) That's correct Chuck. Publication for 30-day public comment on 20 April

  Paul Kane: (16:13) PTI is a placeholder for the new name for IANA ... which will be IANA :-)

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:14) Xavier and Elise, your point is noted for the Bylaws Coordination Group

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:18) I just don't want to commit the Chairs to any extra work this evening since I don't know their schedule :)

  Brenda Brewer: (16:19) Scroll to bottom of document for 1.f

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:23) That word additional  may make sense then OCL  

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:25) that is where the term such as 'additional'   may assist  Alan  as proposed by OCL

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:27) We need to make sure that the intent is crystal clear  here

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:31) and 7

  Paul Kane: (16:32) 6 is now done - Xavier's language works fine

  Paul Kane: (16:33) 7 - I think that is up to PTI staff to develop and the process is defined by Xavier - so 7 is also done

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:33) Yes Xavi

  Alan Greenberg: (16:33) I have to leave now.

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:34) Thanks Alan. Have a good evening

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:34) SO can the reply to Sharon here also be coovered by the new text we are about to circulate  for ??all?? the matters

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:35) I think so, Cheryl

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:35) as  it also covers 7

  Paul Kane: (16:35) Hope so Cheryl :-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:36) I thought it would cover it all  Paul

  Paul Kane: (16:38) Not sure it covers 3 (because I don't understand it!!!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:40) I still think that  te new text would allow for the specific numeral 9 of maonth in advance to not e codefied

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:40) 3 was talking about a deesire for detail  that bis to 'projecct level'

  Brenda Brewer: (16:41) Chuck and all, to be considerate of everyone's time on this call, I will be sending a doodle poll with options for next DTO meeting(s).  Be sure to respond to poll with your availability.  Thank you!!

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:41) Thank you @Brenda. Good suggestion.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:43) I prefer zLIGHT  Bylaws  Chuck  bbuut you know that

  Paul Kane: (16:46) I am leaving you now - have a good day/eve all.

  Xavier Calvez: (16:47) It is already in the notes.

  Xavier Calvez: (16:48) Thank you Paul.

  Xavier Calvez: (16:49) Thank you everyone.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:49) NP Chck

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO): (16:49) Bye  for now

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:49) We will send notes out immediately

  Grace Abuhamad: (16:50) Thank you Chuck