[Gnso-sc-budget] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan

Tue Feb 20 09:44:16 UTC 2018

Hi Michele,

I presume your concerns are the ones articulated [in this email](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/2018-February/000167.html). I will address them point-by-point below in my personal capacity.

[As previously mentioned](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/2018-February/000168.html), CROPP was at one time a pilot programme, but it had since matured and become a part of the core budget. Given that it was a part of the core budget, I believe it is right for us to question why it disappeared without community notification.

The ABR process is used to support core activities. Just last month, for instance, the GNSO Council was asked by ICANN staff to submit an ABR for a working group enrolment tool. We were informed that the current process, of staff overseeing Google forms and sending manual emails to community members, was administratively heavy and that submitting an ABR was the only way to see that this tool would be internally prioritised and thus actively developed.

Of course this was never the intention of the ABR process, which was to fund activities that were not already included in the recurring ICANN budget, and I'd support a 'return to its roots' here. The original objective of the ABR process was and is valuable, because it allows the community to pilot new projects without asking the org to commit to funding them in perpetuity. It means we can be agile and honest, and if something isn't working, we can cut our loses and try something new next year. If it works, it can mature into the core budget.

If we look at the [FY18 figures](https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-19apr17-en.pdf) (see page 4), the GNSO received $415,800 of support through the ABRs (the total spend was $646,800). The total spend by the org was a mere 0.4% of the $143 million FY18 budget. I do not support reducing this any further; the projects being funded are too important, and recipients within the GNSO include both the contracted and non-contracted parties. And we cannot expect the community to be meaningfully involved with policy development at ICANN if our small sliver of the budget is cut. We are already under-resourced. It is the community which brings ICANN legitimacy; by cutting our funding further, ICANN weakens our participation and by extension hampers its own legitimacy.

I would not object to removing the sentence thanking ICANN for supporting the continuation of the GDD Summit, if you want. Was that the desire?

I'm okay with deleting the word "documented" in the sentence on language services; is the sentence otherwise acceptable?

On registrant protection, I'm okay with the bullet point being dropped completely.

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 20 February 2018 9:22 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> This draft also ignores my concerns
>
> And I will have to oppose it as currently worded.
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com
>
> https://blacknight.blog /
>
> http://ceo.hosting/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265
>
> ,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 03:48
> To: Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Cc: "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan
>
> [I am sorry, but this draft disregards both of my oppositions towards the point of supporting the reduction of the fellowship and implying it is not fiscal prudent as it is,  nor if they should stop or not the program. I commented both in the call and in the draft itself. I support that we debate and seek for better measurement tools to understand the cost benefit, but I do not support this preemptive conclusion before even using the tools we are demanding to have. ]
>
> If it is not modified to reflect that there is not an agreement to start with regarding that point,  I will have to oppose officially to its presentation or voting.
>
> I won't speak for them, but in the call another ncsg councillor and a member of the csg also expressed such concerns.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 19 Feb 2018 22:55, "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com> wrote:
>
>> GNSO Council,
>>
>> On behalf of the SCBO, please find attached a working draft of comments for the GNSO Council to consider in preparation for the meeting this Thursday at 12:00 UTC.  Note, that several points within this draft do not have full agreement by the SCBO at this time, but input from the Council is welcome.
>>
>> The draft will be presented by Ayden (SCBO Chair) during agenda item #7.  Here, the Council will deliberate on the draft of comments and the proposed approach leading up to planned submission on 8 March.
>>
>> SCBO Membership and SG/C Subject Matter Experts:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74580769
>>
>> Proposed timeline to submit the comments:
>>
>> ·         19 Feb - Submit draft of comments to Council for review prior to next Council meeting
>>
>> ·         22 Feb - GNSO Council meeting; draft of comments on agenda and deliberation
>>
>> ·         26 Feb - SCBO meeting
>>
>> ·         27 Feb - Send latest draft to Council
>>
>> ·         02 Mar - Deadline for GNSO Council input, suggest edits
>>
>> ·         05 Mar - SCBO meeting; send final version to Council list for review
>>
>> ·         07 Mar - Last call for objections from Council
>>
>> ·         08 Mar - Submit GNSO Council comments to comment forum absent any objections
>>
>> ·         08 Mar - Draft FY19 ICANN Budget comments due
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> B
>>
>> Berry A. Cobb
>>
>> 720.839.5735
>>
>> mail at berrycobb.com
>>
>> @berrycobb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-sc-budget mailing listGnso-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/20180220/0e820457/attachment-0001.html>