CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All, At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document. Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request. We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call. As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution. Thank You. B. Ps clean and track changes version included.
Thanks Bernie. Assuming that a final spell check will be done, unless there are any more major concerns, I think this is ready for finalization except possible for the questions for discussion. Assuming that some editing is still needed on some of the questions, here are my thoughts on the questions: · I suggest they be numbered for easy reference, including labeling sub-questions with letters (a, b, c, . . .). · 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. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 All, At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document. Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request. We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call. As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution. Thank You. B. Ps clean and track changes version included.
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below: " Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names" Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I think the point is that Names provides most of the income for ICANN and thus for IANA. I think it is quite appropriate for names to know how much goes into supporting Protocols and Numbers - especially in a word where we are told by the ICG that they are operationally separate and equal. Perhaps others think so too. I think it is a very appropriate question while we are thinking about transition and the reliability of the funding for the future. and I do think the long term funding is a part of the model we have not paid great attention to. avri On 03-Feb-15 07:27, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below:
" Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names"
Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don’t think ICANN’s AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it. The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com); cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below: " Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names" Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I understand, but am of the view that if we can't even see the full separate budget when the current contract requires a degree of functional separation, it is difficult to move forward with this transition in any sort of knowledgeable way. I just do not understand how can we pick or trust any of these models if a separate budget cannot be shown. Yes we have been hearing about the future detail in the budgets, but if after all these years we cannot get that despite a very competent budget and accounting department at ICANN, one must assume some degree of unwillingness at ICANN on budget transparency. From the ATRT2 report:
ICANN’s (yearly) financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the (yearly) budget.
The fact that we cannot know the full budget for IANA is a problem. And it is a problem we must solve becasue the CCWG plans for budget accountabilty are long range, and this is a immediate problem for getting our work done. avri On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don’t think ICANN’s AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it.
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
Chuck
*From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com); cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below:
" Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names"
Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
Very good points Avri. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:31 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 Hi, I understand, but am of the view that if we can't even see the full separate budget when the current contract requires a degree of functional separation, it is difficult to move forward with this transition in any sort of knowledgeable way. I just do not understand how can we pick or trust any of these models if a separate budget cannot be shown. Yes we have been hearing about the future detail in the budgets, but if after all these years we cannot get that despite a very competent budget and accounting department at ICANN, one must assume some degree of unwillingness at ICANN on budget transparency.
From the ATRT2 report:
ICANN's (yearly) financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the (yearly) budget. The fact that we cannot know the full budget for IANA is a problem. And it is a problem we must solve becasue the CCWG plans for budget accountabilty are long range, and this is a immediate problem for getting our work done. avri On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don't think ICANN's AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it. The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>); cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
* 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below: " Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names" Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF. I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it. I do not begrudge that Names supports Protocols, I think it is a good public service and I would like to see ICANN more invovled in public service (as my involvement in the JAS new gTLD funding for developing economies CWG showed) . However, I think it critical to know the details. avri avri
I could be wrong Avri. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:46 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote: The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF. I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it. I do not begrudge that Names supports Protocols, I think it is a good public service and I would like to see ICANN more invovled in public service (as my involvement in the JAS new gTLD funding for developing economies CWG showed) . However, I think it critical to know the details. avri avri
The IANA protocol services are definitely funded by ICANN and I agree that that is a good expense. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:50 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 I could be wrong Avri. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:46 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 On 03-Feb-15 16:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote: The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF. I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it. I do not begrudge that Names supports Protocols, I think it is a good public service and I would like to see ICANN more invovled in public service (as my involvement in the JAS new gTLD funding for developing economies CWG showed) . However, I think it critical to know the details. avri avri
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF.
No entity is charged for IANA services. Really.
I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it.
There are no "contribution levels for IANA services." The IETF does not provide any funding to ICANN. Nor do the .INT registrants. The RIRs and some ccTLDs provide a voluntary contribution to ICANN, but that accounts for a tiny fraction of ICANN's revenues. Regards, -drc
I thought the point was that ICANN does not provide any funds *to* IETF and RIRs for their internal costs (such as they are) relating to IANA processes (which I assume is primarily policy-related). By contrast, ICANN funds its own costs relating to IANA policy-making, as well as funding the IANA Functions Operator aspect of IANA. Maybe that's a different point.... Greg On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF.
No entity is charged for IANA services. Really.
I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it.
There are no "contribution levels for IANA services." The IETF does not provide any funding to ICANN. Nor do the .INT registrants. The RIRs and some ccTLDs provide a voluntary contribution to ICANN, but that accounts for a tiny fraction of ICANN's revenues.
Regards, -drc
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I don't recall a lot of IANA policy being set by ICANN, although it could happen in the future. But perhaps I have missed something. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 3, 2015 12:29:29 PM EST, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the point was that ICANN does not provide any funds *to* IETF and RIRs for their internal costs (such as they are) relating to IANA processes (which I assume is primarily policy-related). By contrast, ICANN funds its own costs relating to IANA policy-making, as well as funding the IANA Functions Operator aspect of IANA. Maybe that's a different point....
Greg
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF.
No entity is charged for IANA services. Really.
I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it.
There are no "contribution levels for IANA services." The IETF does not provide any funding to ICANN. Nor do the .INT registrants. The RIRs and some ccTLDs provide a voluntary contribution to ICANN, but that accounts for a tiny fraction of ICANN's revenues.
Regards, -drc
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg,
I thought the point was that ICANN does not provide any funds to IETF and RIRs for their internal costs (such as they are) relating to IANA processes (which I assume is primarily policy-related). By contrast, ICANN funds its own costs relating to IANA policy-making, as well as funding the IANA Functions Operator aspect of IANA.
Sorry, what "IANA policy-making" are you talking about? AFAIK, the vast majority of policy making is related to various gTLD-related issues, with a bit of ccTLD policy thrown in on occasion. There is also tiny bit of numbers-related policy making. That is, the vast majority of ICANN's resources are spent on stuff that happens before IANA staff gets involved. Regards, -drc
Apologies for the loose language. I was not really thinking of "IANA policy" but rather "names" policy, which really only hits IANA after ICANN implements these policies, turns them into rules and processes, and a registry starts a process which results in the IANA staff receiving a request. Perhaps I was trying to draw a parallel between IETF and RIRs in their relation to the IANA Functions Operations and ICANN (non-IANA) and its relation to the IANA Functions Operations (performed by the IANA staff). Greg On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:45 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> wrote:
Greg,
I thought the point was that ICANN does not provide any funds *to* IETF and RIRs for their internal costs (such as they are) relating to IANA processes (which I assume is primarily policy-related). By contrast, ICANN funds its own costs relating to IANA policy-making, as well as funding the IANA Functions Operator aspect of IANA.
Sorry, what "IANA policy-making" are you talking about? AFAIK, the vast majority of policy making is related to various gTLD-related issues, with a bit of ccTLD policy thrown in on occasion. There is also tiny bit of numbers-related policy making. That is, the vast majority of ICANN's resources are spent on stuff that happens before IANA staff gets involved.
Regards, -drc
I don’t think there is much if any IANA policy making per se. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 12:29 PM To: David Conrad Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 I thought the point was that ICANN does not provide any funds to IETF and RIRs for their internal costs (such as they are) relating to IANA processes (which I assume is primarily policy-related). By contrast, ICANN funds its own costs relating to IANA policy-making, as well as funding the IANA Functions Operator aspect of IANA. Maybe that's a different point.... Greg On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM, David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org<mailto:david.conrad@icann.org>> wrote: The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF. No entity is charged for IANA services. Really. I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it. There are no "contribution levels for IANA services." The IETF does not provide any funding to ICANN. Nor do the .INT registrants. The RIRs and some ccTLDs provide a voluntary contribution to ICANN, but that accounts for a tiny fraction of ICANN's revenues. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi David While we understand no entity is charged under the current arrangement, I think it will be important to understand the associated costs post NTIA oversight. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 9:25 AM To: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. How do you know that? I thought this was a free service for the IETF. No entity is charged for IANA services. Really. I admit I don't know the numbers contribution levels for the IANA service, but I am pretty sure IETF pays nothing for it. There are no "contribution levels for IANA services." The IETF does not provide any funding to ICANN. Nor do the .INT registrants. The RIRs and some ccTLDs provide a voluntary contribution to ICANN, but that accounts for a tiny fraction of ICANN's revenues. Regards, -drc
Hi Chuck, Well i guess my main point is whether such "accountability" question relating to entire IANA function is best asked by the CCWG, i am not necessarily weighing in on the question itself as i think its relevant. The RIR contribute $823k, however that amount is not necessarily payment for IANA services but just voluntary contribution (call it contribution to internet development). Perhaps i should note that budgetary concern related to the numbers contribution was also raised during the development of the numbers proposal (you may read the thread if interested [1]) Regards 1. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000288.html On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don’t think ICANN’s AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it.
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
Chuck
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com); cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below:
" Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names"
Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Seun, Based on the response that Jonathan forwarded today from the CCWG co-chairs, it doesn’t appear to me that the CCWG will adequately deal with budget accountability and may depend on us to do that. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:06 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com); cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 Hi Chuck, Well i guess my main point is whether such "accountability" question relating to entire IANA function is best asked by the CCWG, i am not necessarily weighing in on the question itself as i think its relevant. The RIR contribute $823k, however that amount is not necessarily payment for IANA services but just voluntary contribution (call it contribution to internet development). Perhaps i should note that budgetary concern related to the numbers contribution was also raised during the development of the numbers proposal (you may read the thread if interested [1]) Regards 1. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000288.html On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don’t think ICANN’s AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it. The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes. Chuck From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>); cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5 sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below: " Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names" Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi, That was the specific info I got back on the question as well. Their task is to establish criteria and mechanisms for long term accountability. While the CWG question can be seen as a component of accountability, in reality it just information, like the legal advice that we need for making decisions. Nothing they are doing will provide that kind of information until decisions are made and accountability changes are made. We cannot wait that long. Hence the indication from the CCWG that while financial accountability was a concern, the financial calculations for IANA today were not really in scope for them. avri On 03-Feb-15 23:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Seun,
Based on the response that Jonathan forwarded today from the CCWG co-chairs, it doesn’t appear to me that the CCWG will adequately deal with budget accountability and may depend on us to do that.
Chuck
*From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:06 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com); cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
Hi Chuck,
Well i guess my main point is whether such "accountability" question relating to entire IANA function is best asked by the CCWG, i am not necessarily weighing in on the question itself as i think its relevant.
The RIR contribute $823k, however that amount is not necessarily payment for IANA services but just voluntary contribution (call it contribution to internet development). Perhaps i should note that budgetary concern related to the numbers contribution was also raised during the development of the numbers proposal (you may read the thread if interested [1])
Regards 1. https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000288.html
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
I definitely think we should eventually be able to see a breakdown of IANA costs by naming, numbers and protocols. I say eventually because, based on my involvement in the ICANN budget, I don’t think ICANN’s AtTask system is implemented to support that yet. Those of us who have been involved in budget issues have been asking for more budget detail for many years and I am cautiously optimistic that it will eventually possible. That said, I strongly support asking for it.
The point I was making in my message was that ICANN funds all of the IANA naming functions but does not fund all of the IETF and RIR costs related to IANA processes.
Chuck
*From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:28 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Bernard Turcotte (turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>); cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 02:35, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Bernie.
· 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.
While the RIRs contributes $800k+ annually (there is no clear financial contribution made by the IETF body), it's not clear how much is spent to operate numbers functions for instance. So I think the intent of the question could be to understand whether the community is interested in knowing the actual cost of operating the respective functions since everything seem lumped together at the moment. Whether it's appropriate for the CWG to ask would be another thing to consider, so perhaps rephrasing the question to refer to names related function may be helpful. Something similar to below:
" Given that the proposal from respective communities may be different, are you concerned about knowing the actual costs for operating the IANA functions related to names"
Regards
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:13 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - DRAFT discussion document for Singapore V3.5
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng //Mobile: +2348035233535// //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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.
One can dive down and find all sorts of reasons for wanting/needing the budget (for instance, those who oppose Contract Co want to know by what percentage the overall budget might grow with additional structures). But regardless of the specific rationale, it is reasonable to assign some numbers to this if only to put the overall operation in perspective. ICANN presents its budgets base on objective. This makes complete sense if you want to identify what a certain objective is costing, and one would not, for instance want to say that IT has had it's budget double when all of the growth is related to once strategic objective that was adopted. But our need is a different one, and if the financial system cannot deliver what we want automatically, it should be completely reasonable to expect someone to do the calculation by hand. We should not have to be debating this ad infinitum. Alan At 03/02/2015 03:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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 dont 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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, I thought it was a obvious question, but several people did not think so, and seemed to condemn the asking. Hence I have tried to explain why I thought it important. Seemed the least I could do. I think needing to know is not limited to any particular model. If we can't get a real figure we might be able to calculate something close using some standard reasoning: Full IANA employe salary budget * ICANN average burden multiplier (including all overhead costs, including senior management costs, administrative costs, travel, benefits, office space, insurance etc) Companies geneally have this so they know the costs of adding each new employee - it isn't just salary. Often this runs 100 - 200% of salary. Then if we figure out the FTE (full time equivalent) assigned to each of the ICG designated separable operational functions we would have a reasonable back of the envelop figure for the costs per operational community. While it would be good to someday have the exact figures, such a calculation would at least give us general understanding. Having once, briefly, been the CEO of a startup, I know this is not high finance and should be trivial for someone that has all the numbers to crunch. As for the RIR contribution to ICANN, if we assume their approx 1 million contribution is 1% of the total ICANN income (not counting new gTLD windfall and assuming a 100MUSD income), then we have an idea that their contribution to IANA is that same 1% since they are not specifically allocated funds. Sorry to be so pointed on this, especially since I have never gotten involved in the financial issues at ICANN before. But it is a critical piece of the puzzle and I think we need all of the pieces. avri On 03-Feb-15 22:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
One can dive down and find all sorts of reasons for wanting/needing the budget (for instance, those who oppose Contract Co want to know by what percentage the overall budget might grow with additional structures). But regardless of the specific rationale, it is reasonable to assign some numbers to this if only to put the overall operation in perspective.
ICANN presents its budgets base on objective. This makes complete sense if you want to identify what a certain objective is costing, and one would not, for instance want to say that IT has had it's budget double when all of the growth is related to once strategic objective that was adopted.
But our need is a different one, and if the financial system cannot deliver what we want automatically, it should be completely reasonable to expect someone to do the calculation by hand. We should not have to be debating this ad infinitum.
Alan
At 03/02/2015 03:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
FY15 budget seems to claim total is 3.0M. Can't say wheter there are other items scattered around that are attributable to IANA without the label on them. Alan At 03/02/2015 04:36 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I thought it was a obvious question, but several people did not think so, and seemed to condemn the asking. Hence I have tried to explain why I thought it important. Seemed the least I could do.
I think needing to know is not limited to any particular model.
If we can't get a real figure we might be able to calculate something close using some standard reasoning:
Full IANA employe salary budget * ICANN average burden multiplier (including all overhead costs, including senior management costs, administrative costs, travel, benefits, office space, insurance etc)
Companies geneally have this so they know the costs of adding each new employee - it isn't just salary. Often this runs 100 - 200% of salary.
Then if we figure out the FTE (full time equivalent) assigned to each of the ICG designated separable operational functions we would have a reasonable back of the envelop figure for the costs per operational community. While it would be good to someday have the exact figures, such a calculation would at least give us general understanding.
Having once, briefly, been the CEO of a startup, I know this is not high finance and should be trivial for someone that has all the numbers to crunch.
As for the RIR contribution to ICANN, if we assume their approx 1 million contribution is 1% of the total ICANN income (not counting new gTLD windfall and assuming a 100MUSD income), then we have an idea that their contribution to IANA is that same 1% since they are not specifically allocated funds.
Sorry to be so pointed on this, especially since I have never gotten involved in the financial issues at ICANN before. But it is a critical piece of the puzzle and I think we need all of the pieces.
avri
On 03-Feb-15 22:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
One can dive down and find all sorts of reasons for wanting/needing the budget (for instance, those who oppose Contract Co want to know by what percentage the overall budget might grow with additional structures). But regardless of the specific rationale, it is reasonable to assign some numbers to this if only to put the overall operation in perspective.
ICANN presents its budgets base on objective. This makes complete sense if you want to identify what a certain objective is costing, and one would not, for instance want to say that IT has had it's budget double when all of the growth is related to once strategic objective that was adopted.
But our need is a different one, and if the financial system cannot deliver what we want automatically, it should be completely reasonable to expect someone to do the calculation by hand. We should not have to be debating this ad infinitum.
Alan
At 03/02/2015 03:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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 dont 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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>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
For such a number to have been developed there has to be a full analysis and breakdown of historical and projected future costs. Which means the information we are seeking is available. What is the process for acquiring it? Matthew On 2/3/2015 10:10 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
FY15 budget seems to claim total is 3.0M. Can't say wheter there are other items scattered around that are attributable to IANA without the label on them.
Alan
At 03/02/2015 04:36 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I thought it was a obvious question, but several people did not think so, and seemed to condemn the asking. Hence I have tried to explain why I thought it important. Seemed the least I could do.
I think needing to know is not limited to any particular model.
If we can't get a real figure we might be able to calculate something close using some standard reasoning:
Full IANA employe salary budget * ICANN average burden multiplier (including all overhead costs, including senior management costs, administrative costs, travel, benefits, office space, insurance etc)
Companies geneally have this so they know the costs of adding each new employee - it isn't just salary. Often this runs 100 - 200% of salary.
Then if we figure out the FTE (full time equivalent) assigned to each of the ICG designated separable operational functions we would have a reasonable back of the envelop figure for the costs per operational community. While it would be good to someday have the exact figures, such a calculation would at least give us general understanding.
Having once, briefly, been the CEO of a startup, I know this is not high finance and should be trivial for someone that has all the numbers to crunch.
As for the RIR contribution to ICANN, if we assume their approx 1 million contribution is 1% of the total ICANN income (not counting new gTLD windfall and assuming a 100MUSD income), then we have an idea that their contribution to IANA is that same 1% since they are not specifically allocated funds.
Sorry to be so pointed on this, especially since I have never gotten involved in the financial issues at ICANN before. But it is a critical piece of the puzzle and I think we need all of the pieces.
avri
On 03-Feb-15 22:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
One can dive down and find all sorts of reasons for wanting/needing the budget (for instance, those who oppose Contract Co want to know by what percentage the overall budget might grow with additional structures). But regardless of the specific rationale, it is reasonable to assign some numbers to this if only to put the overall operation in perspective.
ICANN presents its budgets base on objective. This makes complete sense if you want to identify what a certain objective is costing, and one would not, for instance want to say that IT has had it's budget double when all of the growth is related to once strategic objective that was adopted.
But our need is a different one, and if the financial system cannot deliver what we want automatically, it should be completely reasonable to expect someone to do the calculation by hand. We should not have to be debating this ad infinitum.
Alan
At 03/02/2015 03:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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.
Good evening:
Given the results of the public consultation and the surveys the CWG should develop alternative transition proposals which should include ICANN Internal type solutions. There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option.
With respect to the above paragraph (page 4), I request that the second sentence (currently deleted) should be maintained. Thankyou Christopher Wilkinson On 03 Feb 2015, at 02:12, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included. <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5clean.docx><CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5TrackChanges.docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I have to disagree. The second sentence is unnecessary - other options are being developed (and Contract Co option is still on the table). In addition to which other options were already being mentioned in the Frankfurt meeting. It should be deleted. Matthew On 2/3/2015 6:15 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Good evening:
Given the results of the public consultation and the surveys the CWG should develop alternative transition proposals which should include ICANN Internal type solutions. There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option.
With respect to the above paragraph (page 4), I request that the second sentence (currently deleted) should be maintained.
Thankyou
Christopher Wilkinson
On 03 Feb 2015, at 02:12, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included. <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5clean.docx><CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5TrackChanges.docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
Hello, While I have no major issue either way, one rationale for including that section could be to justify/indicate to the community reason why looking into other option started latter in the process; somewhat historical background to how we got to current status quo. I don't think leaving that line imply that contract co is off the table. Anyway looks like the document is finalized but will be good to take note during actual discussion at the meeting. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 19:44, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
I have to disagree. The second sentence is unnecessary - other options are being developed (and Contract Co option is still on the table). In addition to which other options were already being mentioned in the Frankfurt meeting. It should be deleted.
Matthew
On 2/3/2015 6:15 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Good evening:
Given the results of the public consultation and the surveys the CWG should develop alternative transition proposals which should include ICANN Internal type solutions. There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option.
With respect to the above paragraph (page 4), I request that the second sentence (currently deleted) should be maintained.
Thankyou
Christopher Wilkinson
On 03 Feb 2015, at 02:12, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included. <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5clean.docx> <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5TrackChanges.docx> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The preceding sentence takes care of the "justify/indicate" function, and was inserted to replace the deleted sentence. No sections are being deleted. On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
While I have no major issue either way, one rationale for including that section could be to justify/indicate to the community reason why looking into other option started latter in the process; somewhat historical background to how we got to current status quo. I don't think leaving that line imply that contract co is off the table. Anyway looks like the document is finalized but will be good to take note during actual discussion at the meeting.
Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Feb 2015 19:44, "Matthew Shears" <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
I have to disagree. The second sentence is unnecessary - other options are being developed (and Contract Co option is still on the table). In addition to which other options were already being mentioned in the Frankfurt meeting. It should be deleted.
Matthew
On 2/3/2015 6:15 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Good evening:
Given the results of the public consultation and the surveys the CWG should develop alternative transition proposals which should include ICANN Internal type solutions. There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option.
With respect to the above paragraph (page 4), I request that the second sentence (currently deleted) should be maintained.
Thankyou
Christopher Wilkinson
On 03 Feb 2015, at 02:12, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included. <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5clean.docx> <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5TrackChanges.docx> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://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
Agree with Matthew on the deletion. Greg On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
I have to disagree. The second sentence is unnecessary - other options are being developed (and Contract Co option is still on the table). In addition to which other options were already being mentioned in the Frankfurt meeting. It should be deleted.
Matthew
On 2/3/2015 6:15 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Good evening:
Given the results of the public consultation and the surveys the CWG should develop alternative transition proposals which should include ICANN Internal type solutions. There is not enough support for the Contract Co. option at this time to allow the CWG to continue developing only this option.
With respect to the above paragraph (page 4), I request that the second sentence (currently deleted) should be maintained.
Thankyou
Christopher Wilkinson
On 03 Feb 2015, at 02:12, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
At the request of Lise and Jonathan, given the time-frame is incredibly short, I am including version 3.5 of the discussion document.
Based on 3.2 all changes are in track changes and each change has been attribute via a comment bubble to the person or persons who made the original comment/request.
We have also included the questions which were suggested on today's RFP3 call.
As per Jonathan's request we do need to get this done before heading to Singapore which for most of us will be mid-day Wednesday of this week. As such we would appreciate any significant comments by noon UTC of Wednesday this week at which point we will finalize the document for general distribution.
Thank You.
B.
Ps clean and track changes version included. <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5clean.docx> <CWG-SingaporeUpdateV3.5TrackChanges.docx> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Bernard Turcotte -
Christopher Wilkinson -
David Conrad -
Donna Austin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Matthew Shears -
Seun Ojedeji