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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Chuck,

Well i guess my main point is whether such "accountability" question
relating to entire IANA function is best asked by the CCWG, i am not
necessarily weighing in on the question itself as i think its relevant.

The RIR contribute $823k, however that amount is not necessarily payment
for IANA services but just voluntary contribution (call it contribution to
internet development). Perhaps i should note that budgetary concern related
to the numbers contribution was also raised during the development of the
numbers proposal (you may read the thread if interested [1])

Regards
1. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000288.html

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> 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);
> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM
> > To: 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150203/29b694a6/attachment.html>