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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I thought it was a obvious question, but several people did not think
so, and seemed to condemn the asking.  Hence I have tried to explain why
I thought it important.  Seemed the least I could do.

I think needing to know is not limited to any particular model.

If we can't get a real figure we might be able to calculate something
close using some standard reasoning:

Full IANA employe salary budget * ICANN average burden multiplier
(including all overhead costs, including senior management costs,
administrative costs,  travel, benefits, office space, insurance etc)

Companies geneally have this so they know the costs of adding each new
employee - it isn't just salary.  Often this runs 100 - 200% of salary.

Then if we figure out the FTE (full time equivalent) assigned to each of
the ICG designated separable operational functions we would have a
reasonable back of the envelop figure for the costs per operational
community.  While it would be good to someday have the exact figures,
such a calculation would at least give us general understanding.

Having once, briefly, been the CEO of a startup, I know this is not high
finance and should be trivial for someone that has all the numbers to
crunch.

As for the RIR contribution to ICANN, if we assume their approx 1
million contribution is 1% of the total ICANN income (not counting new
gTLD windfall and assuming a 100MUSD income), then we have an idea that
their contribution to IANA is that same 1% since they are not
specifically allocated funds.

Sorry to be so pointed on this, especially since I have never gotten
involved in the financial issues at ICANN before.  But it is a critical
piece of the puzzle and I think we need all of the pieces.

avri

On 03-Feb-15 22:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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
>> <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/c12c4a15/attachment.html>