RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian,
 
Please see my responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM
        To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
        
        

        Wolf et al,

         

        What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the
fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*.
        [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy
development although it is not separated as a policy development budget
per se.  It would be helpful if it was. 

         

        The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a
prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into
account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised
work.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard
but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization.
They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to
do all of our work. 

         

        This seems upside down or back-to-front or something.

         

        How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no
visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support
other important areas of work?
        [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming
majority of the Studies work would be outsourced.  Obviously Staff has
to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about
Adrian?  I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies
would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be
the case if there are funds to do some studies. 

         

        *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if
there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told
directly and clearly that there is not.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here.  There
are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we
benefit from those funds everyday.  But, as noted above, to date they
have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. 

         

        Adrian Kinderis
        
        

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM
        To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11

         

        Chuck

         

        is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available
in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in
terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded?

        I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of
the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing
with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the
privacy complex.

         

         

        Regards 
        Wolf-Ulrich 

         

                 

                
________________________________


                Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
                Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37
                An: GNSO Council
                Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for
FY11
                Wichtigkeit: Hoch

                <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> 

                In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged
Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and
propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11
budget but no such recommendations were submitted.  Recognizing that the
Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next
Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three
days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our
meeting on 21 April.  To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to
draft the attached motion (also pasted below).

                Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to
first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures
Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion.  Also note
that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for
Whois Studies.  My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at
least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they
are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two
and maybe three studies.  Based on the estimates provided for two of the
studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to
add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000.  If we decided to
budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates
for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000.

                In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot
guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can
should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by
the community and ultimately the ICANN Board.

                . 

                Please discuss this motion with your SGs and
Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it
using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible.

                Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is
willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as
well.  If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one
that can later be amended.

                Chuck 

                Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 

                Whereas: 

                In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a
comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual
issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy
development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)

                Before defining the details of studies, the Council
solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on
WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff
prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS',
dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor
t-25feb08.pdf ).

                On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting
team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority
level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with
the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost
and feasibility. 

                The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with
the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further
research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. 

                On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff
conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS
studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which
studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) 

                On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the
GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and
will continue to work on the remaining areas

                Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least
(insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011.

                Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate
this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board
Finance Committee.