SeunYou misunderstand me and Alan. I don't have time to clarify right now. Will return to this when I can.GregOn Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:Well administrative expenses still technically falls within operational cost as they are not revenue neither are they non-IANA related cost (as Greg put it) so I am in agreement with that.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.On 13 Sep 2015 17:31, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:There will be PTI overhead administrative expenses that might not technically be considered IANA, but other than that, they should be the same.
Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.On September 13, 2015 11:12:43 AM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Greg,
Based on what you've written below it seem to imply there is difference between IANA budget and PTI budget. This will definitely make it no longer a small matter (as Chuck puts it).
If you say PTI/IANA budget include IANA revenue then you are simply referring to ICANN revenue. Does IANA generate revenue other than following instruction?It's like saying because a technical department of an organisation is the actual implementer of service then the organisation revenue generation be accrued to it. I am not an accountant, but my technical reasoning don't think it's logically correct. I think the best that can be presented under IANA/PTI is operating budget.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.On 13 Sep 2015 15:54, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:It was my understanding that the IANA budget would also embrace IANA-related expenses (and revenues?) that were not incurred (received?) by PTI.GregOn Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:Jonathan,
Like I said, it is not a big deal. It just seemed to me that the IANA budget and PTI budget are essentially the same thing under our proposal so I was just curious as to why the edit was made.
Chuck
From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 9:59 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
Chuck,
I am not sure I recall the motivation (if it was discussed at all) for this change. The way I read it, is that the IANA Budget review is by definition also or in effect a PTI budget review and therefore it’s not necessary to say both.
I suggest we submit the comment as currently drafted and then, if for any reason we wish to re-introduce this “/PTI budget” component, we submit it as a minor revision.
Thanks
Jonathan
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: 11 September 2015 17:30
To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
I like the edits made and thank Sidley for doing this. I do have one minor question: under item 1, why was PTI deleted in this sentence: “It is anticipated that the IANA
/PTI budgetBudget review will include aconsultation process with IANA customers.”? Like I said, this is not a big issue.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 7:20 AM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Cc: Thomas Rickert
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
All,
Please see attached from Sidley. This addresses the feedback and discussion from the CWG call yesterday.
Lise and I have discussed this version and we are satisfied that we can submit this to the CCWG public comment as is.
However, as discussed yesterday, we will wait 24 hours (until 12h00 UTC, Saturday 12 September) before doing so.
If you do have additional comment or input, please do provide ASAP, ideally by 23h59 UTC today (Friday 11 Sep) and, in any event, no later than 12h00 UTC tomorrow (12 Sep).
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com]
Sent: 11 September 2015 04:02
To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org>
Subject: [client com] CWG Comment Letter
Dear Client Committee,
Attached is a revised draft of the comment letter which reflects the discussion today, along with a few clean up edits. We’ve attached a clean copy and a redline against the Tuesday draft.
Best regards,
Holly and Sharon
SHARON FLANAGAN
PartnerSidley Austin LLP
555 California Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 415 772 1271
sflanagan@sidley.com
www.sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship