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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Very good points Avri.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:31 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5

Hi,

I understand, but am of the view that if we can't even see the full separate budget when the current contract requires a degree of functional separation, it is difficult to move forward with this transition in any sort of knowledgeable way.

I just do not understand how can we pick or trust any of these models if a separate budget cannot be shown.  Yes we have been hearing about the future detail in the budgets, but if after all these years we cannot get that despite a very competent budget and accounting department at ICANN, one must assume some degree of unwillingness at ICANN on budget transparency.

>From the ATRT2 report:


ICANN's (yearly) financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track
ICANN's activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the
implementation of the (yearly) budget.

The fact that we cannot know the full budget for IANA is a problem.  And it is a problem we must solve becasue the CCWG plans for budget accountabilty are long range, and this is a immediate problem for getting our work done.

avri
On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols.  I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don't think ICANN's AtTask system is implemented to support that yet.  Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible.  That said, I strongly support asking for it.

The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard at gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>); cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5


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<mailto: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/20150203/41d9fa84/attachment.html>