[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think the point is that Names provides most of the income for ICANN
and thus for IANA.

I think it is quite appropriate for names to know how much goes into
supporting Protocols and Numbers - especially in a word where we are
told by the ICG that they are operationally separate and equal.  Perhaps
others think so too.  I think it is a very appropriate question while we
are thinking about transition and the reliability of the funding for the
future.  and I do think the long term funding is a part of the model we
have not paid great attention to.

avri

On 03-Feb-15 07:27, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Bernie.
> >
> > ·         Regarding “Are your concerned about the actual costs for
> operating the IANA functions, for protocols and numbers, given these
> are currently funded by ICANN.” – Are don’t think it is accurate to
> say that they are currently funded by ICANN; ICANN may fund some costs
> but a large part of the RIR and IETF functions are not funded by ICANN.
> >
> While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear
> financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much
> is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the
> intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is
> interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective
> functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment.
> Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to
> consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related
> function may be helpful. Something similar to below:
>
> " Given that the proposal from respective communities may be
> different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for
> operating the IANA functions related to names"
>
> Regards
> >  
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM
> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for
> Singapore V3.5
> >
> >  
> >
> > All,
> >
> >  
> >
> > At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is
> incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has
> been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made
> the original comment/request.
> >
> >  
> >
> > We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's
> RFP3 call.
> >
> >  
> >
> > As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading
> to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this
> week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC
> of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document
> for general distribution.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Thank You.
> >
> >  
> >
> > B.
> >
> >  
> >
> > Ps clean and track changes version included.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150203/3112d8c5/attachment.html>