Hi Stefania, Ed; all:

Sorry that this is so belated, but thank you for doing this! I appreciate
the points you raise, and I am glad you were able to submit this comments.
How can we track it to see if they incorporate your feedback/comments,
and/or hold the PTI accountable if your comments are not addressed?

Best,
-Michael

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Milan, Stefania <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Dear NCSGers
> this is to let you know that Ed Morris and I submitted a public comments
> to the Draft PTI FY18 Operating Plan and Budget (due December 10). I
> enclose it below FYI and further discussion on this list. Unfortunately, we
> worked against the deadline--which is why we are sharing the comment with
> NCSG only after submission.
>
> Following the IANA stewardship transition, PTI (=Public Technical
> Identifiers) performs the naming-related IANA functions under contract with
> ICANN (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-08-11-en).
> Fiscal year 18 is PTI’s first complete fiscal year of operations, as PTI
> was incorporated in August 2016 (hence fell under ICANN's own budget for
> FY17). It is worth noting that "following the end of this public comment
> proceeding, we will hold calls with the community." (see
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-pti-operating-
> plan-budget-2016-10-24-en, under "Next Steps")--hence we should be
> prepared as a stakeholder group.
>
> The comment is now under consideration by the PC.
> All the best, Stefania and Ed
>
> --------
> COMMENT ON DRAFT PTI FY18 OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET
>
> We welcome this opportunity to comment on the FY18 Operating Plan and
> Budget of the Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). A California public
> benefit corporation (entity number C3933089), the PTI is a corporate
> affiliate of ICANN (California entity number C2121683) whose stated
> function, to provide IANA services on behalf of ICANN, in certain
> circumstances is to be capable of separation from ICANN (see generally,
> articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws). As we review the PTI Operating
> Plan and Budget we question whether the PTI’s dependence upon ICANN is so
> extreme that it may better be viewed as a division of ICANN rather than as
> an affiliate--that is to say, a separate corporation controlled by ICANN,
> as it is supposed to be. We would encourage more separation between the two
> entities to bolster public confidence in the integrity of the transition
> and to improve overall accountability.
>
> Independence from ICANN and accountability of the PTI. Concerning more
> specifically the budget, we note that the grand total, including support
> services, of the PTI operational budget shows that a majority of budgeted
> items are either shared costs or ICANN support service allocations
> attributed to the PTI: $5,000,000 of the PTI’s $9,600,000 operational
> budget consist of costs shared with ICANN or are support services provided
> to the PTI by ICANN. The $2,800,000 in support services provided to PTI by
> ICANN is particularly troublesome. We would prefer PTI to develop into an
> entity capable of providing most of its operational capabilities
> independently or, at the very least, openly shared with ICANN. The PTI
> should not be dependent upon staff employed exclusively by ICANN to
> function.
>
> As an example, we have become aware of the status of the Ombudsman with
> PTI. The Ombudsman provides his services on a contractual basis to ICANN;
> he is not an ICANN employee. Our understanding is that he will be providing
> his services to PTI as well, when or if needed, through his contract with
> ICANN. This is wrong. The Ombudsman should be independently and directly
> contracted by PTI for any services he shall undertake for the company, in
> order to safeguard its independent role. The same holds true for any other
> independent contractor, particularly those providing professional services.
>
> Caretaker Budget. We also express our concern over the establishment of
> the initial Caretaker Budget by the ICANN Chief Financial Officer for FY18
> without prior consultation with the community regarding vision and
> priorities. While we understand that this budget might largely retrace the
> proposed budget for the operation of the IANA Services and not much
> flexibility may be possible here, we would like to observe that the
> Caretaker Budget comes into use only if the community rejects the proposed
> budget itself. It makes little sense for the Caretaker IANA Budget to be
> identical to the budget which has been rejected by the community.
>
> We recognize that this initial Caretaker Budget proposal may be a result
> of FY18 being the first full budgetary cycle for the PTI. As such, as a
> matter of good faith and form, we suggest that the Caretaker Budget
> proposed for FY18 be submitted to both the GNSO Council and CCNSO Council
> for feedback and approval. These two groups have enhanced status with
> regards the PTI (see, for example, section 19.1.b.2 of the ICANN Bylaws),
> and if the PTI budget were to be rejected by the Empowered Community the
> legitimacy of the initial Caretaker Budget would be enhanced by prior
> approval of the GNSO and CCNSO.
>
> As to the specifics of the proposed Operating Plan and Budget:
>
> 1.We note that travel and meeting expenses are slated to rise 42.3% from
> FY17 to FY18  due to money budgeted for three Board meetings per annum as
> well as “incremental” community engagement. Given the rather limited remit
> of the PTI, can we be assured this budgeted amount is not expected to
> escalate so rapidly in coming years?
> 2.Following from the above, we notice that no specific outreach efforts
> are mentioned in the document and no further indication of their overall
> purpose, target and content is provided. We wonder what outreach activities
> are the PTI planning, and what professional figure within PTI will be in
> charge of planning said activities.
> 3.The same goes for the community engagement activities. We wonder whether
> PTI will have the ability to create its own community engagement strategy,
> or whether this will be derived from ICANN’s.
> 4.Merit awards for existing employees are responsible for an increase of
> $200,000 in personnel costs in FY18 from the FY17 baseline. With a staff
> FTE of just 22.6 this seems to be rather generous. Would you please be more
> specific about the merit rewards program (i.e. basis of rewards, spread
> amongst x number of employees etc.)?
> 5.An additional $70,000 is budgeted for outside legal expenses in FY18. We
> find that surprising given that FY17 costs incurred for setting up the PTI
> as a legal entity were presumably one time expenses. Would you please help
> us understand the basis for this increased budgeted cost, the total amount
> budgeted for external legal expenses in FY18, the reasons it is anticipated
> these costs will be incurred? We would also like to know whether PTI
> automatically contracts with ICANN’s external counsel, or whether it
> retains the ability to select its own external provider of legal services?
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Edward Morris
> Stefania Milan
> GNSO Councillors
> Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>