[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Milton L Mueller]

Hello Eduardo:
Can you identify any objective reasons why we should be extremely concerned about the potential costs associated with separating out a department that consists of only 7 people (even less, if it’s only the “names-related part) with no heavy, specialized capital equipment?

How would the cost of these legal formalities and minor asset reshufflings compare to the cost of sending ICANN’s CEO and assistants to the World Economic Forum for a week? How would it compare to the costs of running 42 conference calls for the CWG over the course of 8 months, with 3-5 staff members present on each call? Within those parameters, I would suggest that the term “not that significant” or “fairly minimal” is not so subjective or arbitrary.

I am not arguing against Chuck’s suggestion that ICANN accounting develop an estimate (and it will be an estimate, not a measurement). More information can be useful. But we do have objective knowledge of the size of the IANA functions operation and in the greater scheme of things I think these costs are going to look pretty darn small once those estimates are developed.

Let’s also not forget the potential security advantages of separating IANA functions infrastructure from routine, unrelated ICANN stuff. There could be significant reductions of risk, and thus cost, there.

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz

I am not suggesting that we do not accept counsel's advice but to adjust what I consider subjective statements. "fairly minimal and not be significant" need to be defined to make them objective. Based on my business experience also cost is always impredecible especially when you do not have all the details.

-ed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150420/5b1bf640/attachment.html>