Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.