[Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Wed May 23 22:35:32 UTC 2012

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" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com> wrote:

>Sounds good to me.
>
>From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
>Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:55 AM
>To: "Smith, Bill" 
><bill.smith at paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>>
>Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>"
><rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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
><bill.smith at paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>> wrote:
>Making the information available seems a very good thing. HoweverŠ
>
>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
><emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily at emilyta
>ylo
>r.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>>
>Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM
>To: 
>"rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois at icann
>.or
>g<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>"
><rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois at icann
>.or
>g<mailto: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<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org><mailto:denise.
>mic hel at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>>>
>Date: 8 May 2012 20:04
>Subject: Additional budget details
>To: Emily Taylor
><emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily at emilyta
>ylo
>r.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.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.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org><mailto:denise.m
>ich el at icann.org<mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>>
>+1.408.429.3072<tel:%2B1.408.429.3072><tel:%2B1.408.429.3072> mobile 
>+1.310.578.8632<tel:%2B1.310.578.8632><tel:%2B1.310.578.8632> direct
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>  [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]
>
>
>
>76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
>t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> € m: +44
>(0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322>
>emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily at emilytay
>lor
>.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
>
>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk><http://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<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
>www.etlaw.co.uk<http://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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------