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

Tue Feb 20 15:58:43 UTC 2018

Michele,

I agree that we need to submit a thoughtful comment.

I do not agree that we must call for austerity at the expense of good judgement.

Our comment highlights, correctly, that the bulk of the organisation's cost base is in personnel and professional services. Combined they are some 73% of the projected FY19 Budget.

I do not plan to overheat over the small sliver of the budget that the CROP and the ABR envelope comprise. Combined they were less than 0.5% of the overall budget in FY18. I believe that both deliver more value than they cost the organisation.

When the organisation is ramping up spending by 10% on personnel costs to 56% -- something that was already the largest expense in FY18 -- that's what leaves me concerned.

These are my personal views.

On the topic of language services, I believe we are actually in agreement. The text that I added to the proposed comment was actually intended to support the staff proposal on page 21 of Document 2, which reads:

"Given available funding, ICANN org will focus translation resources based on need, rather than standard translation into the six U.N. languages. These needs will be identified by community and org requests... ICANN org will also continue to optimize materials for translation. For example, as appropriate, ICANN org will work internally and with the community to create executive summaries and other synopses for translation, which will improve understanding and participation while simultaneously reducing costs."

Thank you,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 20 February 2018 1:05 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> Ayden
>
> We need to be consistent and thoughtful. Passion and emotion while welcome in some contexts probably isn’t helpful when discussing finance.
>
> ICANN’s revenues are dropping, the reserves are depleted and the overall spend needs to be reduced.
>
> We’ve repeatedly said that we want ICANN to be fiscally prudent, so we need to reflect that sentiment consistently in our input to them.
>
> CROP – I don’t see how it is related to the GNSO Council’s activities. If your SG wants to submit comments on this they’re free to do so, but I don’t think the Council should.
>
> ABR – focus on the metrics and if ICANN has reason to reduce budget spend there due to concerns around the ROI vs spend then that’s different.
>
> Language services – sorry it was late last night when I sent the comments. We’ve discussed this previously, though I’m not sure if the current language really captures it effectively. Language services are important, but they are also very expensive, so the usage and spend need to be linked. At a public meeting, for example, having simultaneous interpretation for “plenary” style sessions makes sense. Having it for a meeting with 5 or 10 people really doesn’t. Translation of key policy documents makes sense. Translating thousands of documents that only a tiny number of people will ever read seems wasteful when you can get a good “gist” from online tools like Google or Bing translate.
>
> GDD Summit – my concern here was that it made it sound like that the GDD Summit received the same level of funding as the NCPH intersessional, which to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t. Also it’s not an intersessional for the CPH – it’s GDD which pulls in registrars, registries, potential registrars and registries and other 3rd parties.
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Date: Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 09:44
> To: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com>
> Cc: "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>, "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan
>
> 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/20180220/839210d2/attachment-0001.html>