[CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
Matthew Shears
mshears at cdt.org
Wed Feb 4 13:32:31 UTC 2015
For such a number to have been developed there has to be a full analysis
and breakdown of historical and projected future costs.
Which means the information we are seeking is available. What is the
process for acquiring it?
Matthew
On 2/3/2015 10:10 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> FY15 budget seems to claim total is 3.0M. Can't say wheter there are
> other items scattered around that are attributable to IANA without the
> label on them.
>
> Alan
>
> At 03/02/2015 04:36 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150204/7a60b116/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list