<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Thanks Bernie.<br>
><br>
> · 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.<br>
><br>
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. <br>
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:</p>
<p dir="ltr">" 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"</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> <br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte<br>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Thank You.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> B.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Ps clean and track changes version included.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
</p>