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. >