[Gnso-sc-budget] Review of recent Council comments for budget implications

[Ayden Férdeline]

Other thoughts on our comment for the FY19 budget...

Based on our [Reserve Fund comment](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-icann-reserve-fund-27nov17-en.pdf) and desired Reserve Fund target, I would suggest that we encourage ICANN to be more ambitious in its replenishment of the fund in FY19.

Do we suggest that the changes we endorsed in our comment on [proposed incremental changes to the ICANN meeting strategy](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-icann-incremental-changes-30jan18-en.pdf) be done in a cost-neutral manner, where possible?

On our call yesterday, Marilyn suggested a review of the community travel standards. I have reviewed the [Council's response](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-response-to-community-travel-support-consultation-21nov17-en.pdf) to the November community travel consultation, and think  there is only a limited space for us to comment here. I think we can (and should) comment on the support provided directly to the Council, including the support provided to the recipients of the PDP WG pilot, but I suggest we leave our remarks there. I think the comment we made that, "There is a need for effective measurements for active participation to maximise the return of investment and to properly retain active volunteers participating in policy activities" remains valid and should be highlighted again in our comment on the FY19 budget. That said, relative to the size of the overall budget, the spend on GNSO travel is negligible, and I think the only review really needed is one which assesses whether the current travel guidelines appropriately retain volunteers. Just my personal perspective but I do not think requiring volunteers to travel on the cheapest ticket, at the most inconvenient time of day, in economy, is always appropriate.

Finally, I was reviewing the GNSO2 Review [Progress and Implementation Status Report](https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-progress-implementation-report-19oct17-en.pdf), and I was wondering if we felt like some of these recommendations were really nearing completion. For instance, Recommendation #7, "That Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies engage more deeply with community members whose first language is other than English, as a means to overcoming language barriers," is one which I think could have significant, ongoing cost implications, including for FY19.

I am sharing these suggestions in my personal capacity here, and not as Chair of this Standing Committee. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we should proceed.

Best wishes,

Ayden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180206/d4a52ae3/attachment.html>