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

Tue Feb 3 22:58:59 UTC 2015

Seun,

Based on the response that Jonathan forwarded today from the CCWG co-chairs, it doesn’t appear to me that the CCWG will adequately deal with budget accountability and may depend on us to do that.

Chuck

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:06 PM
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

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<mailto: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<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
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto: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/e3050e44/attachment-0001.html>