I agree with both of you. Many questions arise when reading the information but I do not think we should try and regroup to evaluate it. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. Phone - 650 485-6064 On 5/23/12 10:57 AM, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me.
From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:55 AM To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details
Hi Bill
Thanks for your analysis and your comments. I agree with all you say, and asked myself similar questions.
We have concluded our work, the report has been published. I think the best thing is to put this document out into the public domain with a note to say that it arrived too late for inclusion in the report or other analysis, but we include it for the record and as a resource for future review teams.
Kind regards
Emily
On 23 May 2012 18:52, Smith, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> wrote: Making the information available seems a very good thing. HoweverŠ
With just a cursory review one might question the FY11 actuals:
* Ignoring overhead, 46% of Compliance spending is "other department allocation". A significant amount. * Travel has an overhead allocation of 36%. Why and for what purpose? * Admin overhead is calculated at a surprising 119%. * Other department allocation and overhead represent 57% of compliance spend.
It would also be helpful to know what is included in each category in order to better understand if funds are being spent appropriately.
On the one hand I'm hesitant to include this information in our report without an opportunity to better understand the numbers and on the other, I was hoping we had concluded our work. Perhaps we could include a statement indicating that ICANN helpfully provided this information, but given that the RT had concluded its work, a thorough evaluation was not possible. We suggest that this information be provided much earlier in the next WHOIS Review cycle to enable the next RT to understand ICANN budgeting and to determine if Compliance funds are being spent appropriately.
From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily@emilytaylo r.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>> Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:47 AM To: "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.or g<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois@icann.or g<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>>> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Fwd: Additional budget details
Hi all
To clear up this loose end, I received additional information from Denise (below), which gives a little more detail on the way that the budgets are organised. You may recall that rather than providing discrete budget lines for each department, ICANN appears to budget on a contribution basis, so that support functions (eg legal, finance, communications) have their spend distributed around the operational departments (new gTLDs, compliance).
The additional information came too late for analysis and inclusion in the final report, but my proposal is that we publish it as part of Appendix B, and include an announcement on the call for public comment which draws attention to the new item.
Any thoughts, objections?
Kind regards
Emily
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org><mailto:denise.mic hel@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>>> Date: 8 May 2012 20:04 Subject: Additional budget details To: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily@emilytaylo r.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>>
Hi, Emily.
My apologies for the delay on these additional numbers. Attached is the FY11 Functional Report for the Compliance activities. The report includes aggregate numbers for the major expense categories we discussed -- Personnel, Travel, Professional Services and Administration. The report shows data for the FY11 Actual, the FY11 Budget, and the variance between the two. Note that approximately 5-10% of the following department budgets are used for compliance-related activities and are reflected in the attached as "Other dept. allocation": Operations, IT, Legal, Registrar, Registry, Overhead.
If you have any question please let me know.
Regards, Denise
Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org><mailto:denise.mich el@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>> +1.408.429.3072<tel:%2B1.408.429.3072><tel:%2B1.408.429.3072> mobile +1.310.578.8632<tel:%2B1.310.578.8632><tel:%2B1.310.578.8632> direct
--
[http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811<tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811> € m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily@emilytaylor .eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>
www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk><http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
--
[http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 € m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>
www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois