On a totally different note, most everyone assumes that the costs would go up with an external entity. I would suggest that that may not necessarily be the case depending on a lot of factors. That is another reason for needing the total costs. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:36 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 Hi, I think these questions ought to asked because ICANN, funded mostly by Names, pays for all of IANA's services. I think we need to know how much this costs and what the various portions cost as we are making assumptions about future possible plans. It is part of the stability question we need to answer. Something I know quite well is that lack of budget results in lack of stability. The ICG has declared the three operational entities separate, and each of the three is declaring that they could leave ICANN if displeased - a position I agree with. But this is a service that cost quite a bit I expect and such independence would come at a cost. I think we need know the costs in order to figure out this puzzle. We cannot asume that thing could change without know what the costs would be. For the Names side, we know that the cost = total cost for IANA - costs(Numbers + Protocols). But what is that in numbers? avri On 03-Feb-15 02:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote: * Why are we asking questions about numbers and protocols? If there is a good reason for that, I suggest that the questions regarding numbers and protocols be separate from the questions for names. * Regarding "Are your concerned about the actual costs for operating the IANA functions, for protocols and numbers, given these are currently funded by ICANN." - Are don't think it is accurate to say that they are currently funded by ICANN; ICANN may fund some costs but a large part of the RIR and IETF functions are not funded by ICANN.