From alice.jansen at icann.org Tue May 22 08:10:42 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 01:10:42 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Redline version In-Reply-To: <005801cd3456$041fb0f0$0c5f12d0$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, This is to notify you that the redline version is now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-redline-11may12-en.pdf Links to this redline document have been added to the public comment box - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-en.htm and announcement - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm Thanks, Kind regards Alice From: Seth M Reiss > To: 'Lynn Goodendorf' >, 'Emily Taylor' >, "lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" >, "rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Can?t Word and other programs just do this at a click of a computer key? From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn Goodendorf Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:01 AM To: Emily Taylor; lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Thanks for the clarification Emily. I still have a reluctance for ICANN staff to spend time on this but feel reassured in that both documents have been published. Lynn Ms. Lynn Goodendorf, CIPP, CISSP VP - Data Privacy Services VerSprite - Navigate Beyond Risk (Main) 1.678.278.8312 | (Direct) 1.404.333.3779 | (Fax) 1.678.222.3401 www.versprite.com |twitter: @VerSprite ________________________________ From:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Emily Taylor [emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:18 AM To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org; rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version Hi there Just to be clear what I'm proposing, Lynn I don't propose that we publish our working discussions, merely the differences between our two public documents. This is similar to what was done by ICANN for the various versions of the gTLD applicant guidebook. I found it very helpful because if you have read the whole document once, you can then concentrate on what has changed. So, it's just highlighting differences in the two published texts. Kind regards Emily On 17 May 2012 13:16, > wrote: If we have the discretion to decline this request, it seems like unnecessary work to me. The principle that we have emphasized is that this is a consensus based output and we did work hard to achieve that. and we have followed all the transparency practices as we progressed. Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor > Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:27:09 To: > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Request for redline version _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120522/15e321c9/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed May 23 08:47:17 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:47:17 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance). The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws attention to the new item. Any thoughts, objections? Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 Subject: Additional budget details To: Emily Taylor Hi, Emily. My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead. If you have any question please let me know. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120523/ba8e82e9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FY11 Compliance Activities Report.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 15645 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120523/ba8e82e9/FY11ComplianceActivitiesReport.xlsx From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed May 23 17:52:36 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:52:36 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Making the information available seems a very good thing. However? With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals: * Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department allocation". A significant amount. * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance spend. It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately. On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the other, I was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include a statement indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, but given that the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was not possible. We suggest that this information be provided much earlier in the next WHOIS Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand ICANN budgeting and to determine if Compliance funds are being spent appropriately. From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details Hi all To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance). The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws attention to the new item. Any thoughts, objections? Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel > Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 Subject: Additional budget details To: Emily Taylor > Hi, Emily. My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead. If you have any question please let me know. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed May 23 17:55:30 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:55:30 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill Thanks for your analysis and your comments. I agree with all you say, and asked myself similar questions. We have concluded our work, the report has been published. I think the best thing is to put this document out into the public domain with a note to say that it arrived too late for inclusion in the report or other analysis, but we include it for the record and as a resource for future review teams. Kind regards Emily On 23 May 2012 18:52, Smith, Bill wrote: > Making the information available seems a very good thing. However? > > With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals: > > * Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department > allocation". A significant amount. > * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? > * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. > * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance > spend. > > It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in > order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately. > > On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report > without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the other, I > was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include a statement > indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, but given that > the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was not possible. We > suggest that this information be provided much earlier in the next WHOIS > Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand ICANN budgeting and to > determine if Compliance funds are being spent appropriately. > > From: Emily Taylor > > Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM > To: "rt4-whois at icann.org"

> > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details > > Hi all > > To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise > (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are > organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines > for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so > that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend > distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance). > > The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the > final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, > and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws > attention to the new item. > > Any thoughts, objections? > > Kind regards > > Emily > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Denise Michel denise.michel at icann.org>> > Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 > Subject: Additional budget details > To: Emily Taylor > > > > Hi, Emily. > > My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the > FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes > aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- > Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report > shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between > the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets > are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the > attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, > Registry, Overhead. > > > If you have any question please let me know. > > Regards, > Denise > > Denise Michel > ICANN > Advisor to the President & CEO > denise.michel at icann.org > +1.408.429.3072 mobile > +1.310.578.8632 direct > > > > > -- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 > emily at emilytaylor.eu > > www.etlaw.co.uk > > Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and > Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120523/c6bfb2ac/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed May 23 17:57:43 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:57:43 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sounds good to me. From: Emily Taylor > Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:55 AM To: "Smith, Bill" > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details Hi Bill Thanks for your analysis and your comments. I agree with all you say, and asked myself similar questions. We have concluded our work, the report has been published. I think the best thing is to put this document out into the public domain with a note to say that it arrived too late for inclusion in the report or other analysis, but we include it for the record and as a resource for future review teams. Kind regards Emily On 23 May 2012 18:52, Smith, Bill > wrote: Making the information available seems a very good thing. However? With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals: * Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department allocation". A significant amount. * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance spend. It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately. On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the other, I was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include a statement indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, but given that the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was not possible. We suggest that this information be provided much earlier in the next WHOIS Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand ICANN budgeting and to determine if Compliance funds are being spent appropriately. From: Emily Taylor >> Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM To: "rt4-whois at icann.org

>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details Hi all To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance). The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws attention to the new item. Any thoughts, objections? Kind regards Emily ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel >> Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 Subject: Additional budget details To: Emily Taylor >> Hi, Emily. My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead. If you have any question please let me know. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org> +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily at emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. From susank at fb.com Wed May 23 18:05:06 2012 From: susank at fb.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:05:06 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with both of you. Many questions arise when reading the information but I do not think we should try and regroup to evaluate it. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 5/23/12 10:57 AM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: >Sounds good to me. > >From: Emily Taylor > >Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:55 AM >To: "Smith, Bill" >> >Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" >> >Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details > >Hi Bill > >Thanks for your analysis and your comments. I agree with all you say, and >asked myself similar questions. > >We have concluded our work, the report has been published. I think the >best thing is to put this document out into the public domain with a note >to say that it arrived too late for inclusion in the report or other >analysis, but we include it for the record and as a resource for future >review teams. > >Kind regards > >Emily > >On 23 May 2012 18:52, Smith, Bill >> wrote: >Making the information available seems a very good thing. However? > >With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals: > > * Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department >allocation". A significant amount. > * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? > * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. > * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance >spend. > >It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in >order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately. > >On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report >without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the other, >I was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include a >statement indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, but >given that the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was not >possible. We suggest that this information be provided much earlier in >the next WHOIS Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand ICANN >budgeting and to determine if Compliance funds are being spent >appropriately. > >From: Emily Taylor >r.eu>> >Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM >To: >"rt4-whois at icann.org

g>" >

g>> >Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details > >Hi all > >To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise >(below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are >organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget >lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution >basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have >their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, >compliance). > >The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in >the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of >Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment >which draws attention to the new item. > >Any thoughts, objections? > >Kind regards > >Emily > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Denise Michel >hel at icann.org>> >Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 >Subject: Additional budget details >To: Emily Taylor >r.eu>> > > >Hi, Emily. > >My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the >FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes >aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- >Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report >shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between >the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department >budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in >the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, >Registrar, Registry, Overhead. > > >If you have any question please let me know. > >Regards, >Denise > >Denise Michel >ICANN >Advisor to the President & CEO >denise.michel at icann.orgel at icann.org> >+1.408.429.3072 mobile >+1.310.578.8632 direct > > > > >-- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > >76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 >(0)7540 049 322 >emily at emilytaylor.eu.eu> > >www.etlaw.co.uk > >Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > > > >-- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > >76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 >emily at emilytaylor.eu > >www.etlaw.co.uk > >Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > >_______________________________________________ >Rt4-whois mailing list >Rt4-whois at icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Wed May 23 22:35:32 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:35:32 +1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33548D9198@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hello again all, I see the release of this data as a promising development. However, I agree that we shouldn't somehow try to analyse it in our review team capacity. I also agree that it may be useful for the rest of the community to have visibility of these figures. As we know, ICANN's compliance efforts are under a spotlight elsewhere in the community too, and if we can assist those efforts at the same time as helping ICANN along the path to more transparency on its budgeting, then I think that's a useful outcome. So, in short, I agree with the proposed approach. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, 24 May 2012 4:05 AM To: Smith, Bill; Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details I agree with both of you. Many questions arise when reading the information but I do not think we should try and regroup to evaluate it. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 5/23/12 10:57 AM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: >Sounds good to me. > >From: Emily Taylor > >Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:55 AM >To: "Smith, Bill" >> >Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" >> >Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details > >Hi Bill > >Thanks for your analysis and your comments. I agree with all you say, >and asked myself similar questions. > >We have concluded our work, the report has been published. I think the >best thing is to put this document out into the public domain with a >note to say that it arrived too late for inclusion in the report or >other analysis, but we include it for the record and as a resource for >future review teams. > >Kind regards > >Emily > >On 23 May 2012 18:52, Smith, Bill >> wrote: >Making the information available seems a very good thing. However? > >With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals: > > * Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department >allocation". A significant amount. > * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? > * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. > * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance >spend. > >It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in >order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately. > >On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report >without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the >other, I was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include >a statement indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, >but given that the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was >not possible. We suggest that this information be provided much earlier >in the next WHOIS Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand >ICANN budgeting and to determine if Compliance funds are being spent >appropriately. > >From: Emily Taylor >ylo >r.eu>> >Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM >To: >"rt4-whois at icann.org

.or >g>" >

.or >g>> >Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details > >Hi all > >To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from >Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the >budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing >discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a >contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, >communications) have their spend distributed around the operational >departments (new gTLDs, compliance). > >The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in >the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of >Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment >which draws attention to the new item. > >Any thoughts, objections? > >Kind regards > >Emily > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Denise Michel >mic hel at icann.org>> >Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 >Subject: Additional budget details >To: Emily Taylor >ylo >r.eu>> > > >Hi, Emily. > >My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the >FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report >includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we >discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and >Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 >Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% >of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related >activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. >allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead. > > >If you have any question please let me know. > >Regards, >Denise > >Denise Michel >ICANN >Advisor to the President & CEO >denise.michel at icann.orgich el at icann.org> >+1.408.429.3072 mobile >+1.310.578.8632 direct > > > > >-- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > >76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 >(0)7540 049 322 >emily at emilytaylor.eulor >.eu> > >www.etlaw.co.uk > >Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > > > >-- > > > [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] > > > >76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK >t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 ? m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 >emily at emilytaylor.eu > >www.etlaw.co.uk > >Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and >Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. > > >_______________________________________________ >Rt4-whois mailing list >Rt4-whois at icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From olof.nordling at icann.org Fri May 25 12:38:37 2012 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 05:38:37 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <008801cd39c4$c9e6ece0$5db4c6a0$@berrycobb.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCA54E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <008801cd39c4$c9e6ece0$5db4c6a0$@berrycobb.com> Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCA6D4@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team members, FYI, see below for an upcoming webinar regarding WHOIS (ever seen that acronym before?...;-) on June 1st. It's open to all and in case you're interested, please note that you need to register to get the call-in details. Very best regards Olof From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail at berrycobb.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:49 PM To: Julie Hedlund; Bart Boswinkel; Alice Jansen; Olof Nordling; Heidi Ullrich; Jeannie Ellers; Jamie Hedlund Cc: Liz Gasster Subject: FW: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC Here is the formal announcement. Thank you for your spreading the word. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail at berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint G?ry Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 04:44 To: council at gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 1 June 2012, at 13:00 & 20:00 UTC WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey Webinar 23 May 2012 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) requests community input on a draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey, to assess the content of the survey before releasing it for public solicitation. In parallel with the Public Comment period, the Working Group is hosting two webinar sessions to brief the community on the background of this effort and to solicit input from experts on technical requirements for a new WHOIS protocol, in particular people knowledgeable about technical aspects of WHOIS who can help assess if the survey asks the right questions and in the right style to elicit useful and clear technical feedback. The Working Group seeks specific suggestions on changes to language and questions that will make it clearer for experts to complete. Members of the Working Group will provide a briefing on Friday 1 June at 13.00 UTC and Friday 1 June at 20.00 UTC, summarizing the purpose of this effort and reviewing the work called for in the Working Group's charter. 13:00 UTC click on this link: http://tinyurl.com/85s8fou 20:00 UTC click on this link http://tinyurl.com/7qydxhm The webinars will also review the sections of the survey as they relate to the proposed technical requirements outlined in the GNSO WHOIS Service Requirement Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-29jul10-en.pdf that was prepared by Staff at the GNSO Council's request in July 2010. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 60 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff at icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Friday at 13.00 UTC or Friday at 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120525/7c6e253f/attachment.html