[Gnso-sc-budget] Reduction of travel spend by $0.5m in GNSO policy development budget - what impact, if any, on the GNSO?

Sun Feb 18 18:05:35 UTC 2018

Thanks, Berry - I find this very helpful.

Just a general comment for Policy staff, are there any concerns that any of the reductions may negatively impact the GNSO's policy development processes?

Also, in the RDS PDP WG, the suggestion was recently made that legal advice be sought on something. I don't know what will become of that request, but I was just wondering, if the decision is ultimately made for this (or another GNSO-managed WG) to obtain legal advice, where does that support come from? Does that come out of the Professional Services envelope which has been reduced by $713,000, or would it come from somewhere else?

Thanks again,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 18 February 2018 6:55 PM, Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com> wrote:

> Ayden and All,
>
> I made a formula error on the “Deltas” section comparing FY18 to FY19.  Thus a fresh copy is attached.
>
> One of the limitations of rounded numbers is the difficulty to see actual amounts.  To view these actual amounts, it is best to see the value contained in the cell.  For example, In FY18 the CROPP program is specifically listed at $160,000 but shows $0.2M on the budget XLS.  I’ve attached the adopted FY18 budget XLS for your reference, and CROPP appears in cell I74.
>
> As you noted, I’ll spend a few minutes reviewing the summary notes and deltas sheet during our call tomorrow.  Here are some key take-aways for Goal 1.3 from FY18 to FY19:
>
> ·         Note that the following numbers are for the entire Policy department and not just the GNSO.
>
> ·         FTE Allocation is reduced by (0.9) to 35.6 FTE
>
> ·         Personnel expense increases by $128,000 for the 35.6 FTE
>
> ·         Travel & Meetings is reduced by ($571,000)
>
> o   As confirmed in the clarifying questions, CROPP at ($160,000) was not included in FY19.  Ergys mentioned that CROPP was administered by GSE, but the funding for it appeared under Portfolio 1.3.1 within FY18.
>
> o   Staff travel is reduced by ($411,000) in FY19.  As Marika noted, the Policy Team strategic meeting has been cut and a reduction of Policy staff travel for the NCPH and GDD intersessional meetings is also terminated.  Note, that this amount is for the entire Policy team and not just the GNSO. Reduced Policy staff travel to ICANN meetings is also included in this number.  For now, this reduction is on a number’s basis and it is not clear yet how this translates to reduced persons in physical attendance.  Note also, travel amounts include specific staff travel for other meetings like IETF for other activities that require travel to ICANN’s regional offices.  I’ll defer to Marika on how these reductions may impact the GNSO Policy staff’s work in supporting the community.
>
> o   Community supported travel under Portfolio 1.3.2 increased by $204,000 due to higher priced meeting locations and as noted in the FY19 draft budget the quantity of supported community members remained the same.
>
> ·         Professional Services is reduced by ($713,000)
>
> ·         Admin and Capital is reduced by ($16,000)
>
> ·         Total budget reduction is ($977,000) for FY19
>
> I hope you find this helpful.
>
> Berry A. Cobb
>
> 720.839.5735
>
> mail at berrycobb.com
>
> @berrycobb
>
> From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:17
> To: Ayden Férdeline
> Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Reduction of travel spend by $0.5m in GNSO policy development budget - what impact, if any, on the GNSO?
>
> Ayden, in relation to your question regarding reductions of staff travel (including the policy staff) please note that in line with Goran’s blog post and the FY19 budget documents, significant savings are also foreseen in ICANN Org related expenses, including travel. For the policy team and GNSO team in particular, this means for example that we’ve proposed to cut our policy team strategic planning session and reduce staff support for intercessional meetings to prevent any reductions of staff travel to ICANN meetings as that would directly affect our policy/advice support to the community.
>
> With regards to the recent LA policy team meeting, I can reassure you that as a result of the excellent negotiation skills on our team, we were able to secure the best rates at nearby LA hotels for the GNSO intersessional and for the policy annual strategic and training sessions. Such arrangements also allowed 6 policy staff to support the GNSO meetings without extra costs.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 17 Feb 2018, at 15:32, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am reviewing the documents that Berry prepared in advance of our call for this Monday. I understand that Berry will walk us through them then, but I had one question now and just thought I'd flag it so we can hopefully get a response on Monday:
>>
>> According to the comparative table, the Policy team's travel spend is being reduced by $500,000 in FY19. As best I can tell, that figure includes the CROP travel spend, so the reduction is just $300,000 over FY18. Under the header "GNSO Related Project Deltas from FY18," the project "FY18 Ongoing Policy  General Management Administration" is described as having a reduction of $300,000 in its travel spend. However, the description in table indicates, "Project will continue into FY19, but Prof. Svcs. resource reduction (appx. $500k)".
>>
>> Can you please clarify, is there actually a reduction in staff travel?
>>
>> If so, can you please advise what the reductions in staff travel would entail, and whether they would negatively impact your work? This is in line with the 'penny wise, pound foolish' principle I introduced into an email earlier today; I'd like to look carefully at any reductions in service to the GNSO. If this spend is unnecessary, let's slash it, but if it is ultimately going to harm the service which the GNSO and/or the Council receives, we need to know so that we can raise awareness on the Council and in our communities.
>>
>> Perhaps some savings will be achieved through efficiencies and there will not be a degradation of service? For instance, by staying in the same type of hotel as ICANN accommodates community members? (From what I understand, the Policy team stayed at the Marina del Rey Hotel in January, while GNSO community members participating in the Council Strategic Planning Session stayed at the DoubleTree a week later. At least based on hotel rack rates, which I confirmed mid-January, the DoubleTree was half the price.)
>>
>> Not trying to throw any stones here; not trying to be judge and jury -- just trying to understand where and how resources which support policy development and policy-related activities are being spent, and how any reductions could impact us (if at all). Thank you.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Ayden
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-sc-budget mailing list
>> Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180218/6f097ba3/attachment-0001.html>