[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Request to Remove RDS-WHOIS2 Review from Short-term options Public Comment

[Alan Greenberg]

During our meeting last Monday, we decided to request that ICANN Org 
remove the RDS-WHOIS2 from the Public Comment(PC) on Short-Term 
Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews.

Part of the argument for doing so is that we will be almost finished 
the bulk of our work by the time the PC completes, and the other part 
is that the financial savings that the PC presume from our changing 
scope or pausing the review - $460k is far too high.

For this 2nd part, I have summarized our past and projected expenses. 
If the RT does not agree with these projections, they must be 
adjusted prior to us making the request (which I hope we can do next Monday).

Facts/Assumptions:

We had a cost of $15k for the Abu Dhabi meeting (people were brought 
in even though we did not end up having a formal meeting).

We have had 2 F2F meetings to date at a cost of about $30k each. To 
complete its final report, the RT will need the planned F2F meeting 
in July, and possibly another F2F to complete the final report, 
potentially in November.

We have currently spent about $46k on external contract support 
(largely Lisa) and I have projected another $40k presuming a large 
part of the work has already been carried out, but there may be some 
editing and other needs near the end.

It is possible that we may want to bring several people to the March 
2019 ICANN meeting to formally present the report. I have allowed 
$20k for that (per person costs will be higher than our Brussels meetings)

For general contingency I have added $19k, and also an additional 
$30k in case, for whatever reason, we need one more F2F meeting.

The original review budget allowed $200k for an external study, but 
there is no indication that this will be used.

That results in a total Review Budget $290 compared to the original 
ICANN estimate of $690k. The FY breakdown is: FY17: $15k; FY18: 
$130k; FY19: $145k.

MSSI has reviewed this and presuming the assumptions of number of 
meetings and no external contract is correct, they believe that this 
is reasonable.

Are there any questions, and do you feel comfortable proceeding on this basis?

THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED DURING OUR MONDAY MEETING. IF YOU CANNOT 
ATTEND, PLEASE SEND COMMENTS AHEAD OF TIME.

Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20180601/e3a7f9b8/attachment.html>