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

[Alan Greenberg]

One can dive down and find all sorts of reasons 
for wanting/needing the budget (for instance, 
those who oppose Contract Co want to know by what 
percentage the overall budget might grow with 
additional structures). But regardless of the 
specific rationale, it is reasonable to assign 
some numbers to this if only to put the overall operation in perspective.

ICANN presents its budgets base on objective. 
This makes complete sense if you want to identify 
what a certain objective is costing, and one 
would not, for instance want to say that IT has 
had it's budget double when all of the growth is 
related to once strategic objective that was adopted.

But our need is a different one, and if the 
financial system cannot deliver what we want 
automatically, it should be completely reasonable 
to expect someone to do the calculation by hand. 
We should not have to be debating this ad infinitum.

Alan

At 03/02/2015 03:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think  these questions ought to asked because 
>ICANN, funded mostly by Names, pays for all of IANA's services.
>
>I think we need to know how much this costs and 
>what the various portions cost as we are making 
>assumptions about future possible plans.  It is 
>part of the stability question we need to 
>answer.  Something I know quite well is that 
>lack of budget results in lack of stability.
>
>The ICG has declared the three operational 
>entities separate, and each of the three is 
>declaring that they could leave ICANN if 
>displeased - a position I agree with.  But this 
>is a service that cost quite a bit I expect and 
>such independence would come at a cost.  I think 
>we need know the costs in order to figure out 
>this puzzle.  We cannot asume that thing could 
>change without know what the costs would be.
>
>For the Names side, we know that the cost = 
>total cost for IANA - costs(Numbers + Protocols).  But what is that in numbers?
>
>
>avri
>
>On 03-Feb-15 02:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>
>>·         Why are we asking questions about 
>>numbers and protocols?  If there is a good 
>>reason for that, I suggest that the questions 
>>regarding numbers and protocols be separate from the questions for names.
>>
>>·         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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20150203/83d0cbba/attachment.html>