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

Tue Feb 20 16:46:03 UTC 2018

Jonathan,

I think [could be wrong] that we all needed to simply designate that we would use CROP.  And as the RY and RR didn't submit the request... etc.

However, I will go to the source and ask for clarification. BUT, if that is the case, perhaps you can lead creating awareness about how the RR and RY use CROP.

________________________________
From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 11:06 AM
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan

Hi,

Speaking again in my personal capacity.

I had hoped that in our comment we might have looked at the bigger picture and seen that CROP was something that was used by many parts of the GNSO and does, both directly and indirectly, support the entire GNSO.

I do not know the historical context behind why the Registries SG and the Registrars SG are not eligible to partake in it, but that is an inequality that should perhaps be rectified. To scrap the entire programme seems the wrong approach to me.

There is a helpful staff analysis<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F71601389%2FCROPP%2520Summary%2520Report-FY17%2520%2528final%2529.pdf%3Fversion%3D2%26modificationDate%3D1507291071000%26api%3Dv2&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=9PJF%2B%2BC7F5HGwPU35TYKR14zr7gSVYtjC8V9N2yYW2Q%3D&reserved=0> of the programme that was published last year. On page 14, ICANN staff concluded, "It remains Staff's view that CROP can be a useful tool for volunteer structures (e.g., Constituencies, RALOs) to develop and strengthen their stakeholder groups." It might help yours as well.

I will wait to see further comments on this list as to how we should proceed. If the consensus is that we should not comment on CROP, then that is something I would find disappointing (because the absence of CROP will harm the GNSO) but something I would respect.

Thank you,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 20 February 2018 2:10 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

Michele and others,

Working through these various points of discussion as I catch up. A couple of key points right now as follows:

As discussed yesterday, CROP / CROPP is something that has had no visibility within the Registries SG (and I assume the Registrars SG) and it does not seem to relate directly to Council / GNSPO Policy activities.

Therefore, I’d support Michele in suggesting that this item is better dealt with at the SG / C level.

With regard to GDD, I agree too that it is not equivalent to the NCPH intercessional both in terms of its purpose and funding.

In simple terms, GDD is focused on Registry and Registrar operational issues and the work with ICANN GDD to deal with these.

I won’t presume to talk about the purpose and function of the NCPH intercessional but it’s clearly not the same as the GDD Summit.

Thank-you.

Jonathan

From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 12:05 PM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan

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/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=cJRVBd0ElAwapGdFp9ibV5eSO3Q6R7cI%2BWyQ4vXJQx8%3D&reserved=0>

http://blacknight.blog/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=wWR%2BA8ret%2Bwj5GTDrPpP2bxY10SD%2FP5kgOio%2FLBsE8E%3D&reserved=0>

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichele.blog%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=xLI3SrqwO8Fh5rOCYBZDF8Sf%2FbMAN5CdwJ%2F0p698%2BCQ%3D&reserved=0>

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=IEgRxFQXnTSgf0ukWoNr%2FR1I%2BzSQsNQZ5rUOqpkLWRI%3D&reserved=0>

-------------------------------

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<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
Date: Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 09:44
To: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
Cc: "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>, Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>>, "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto: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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-sc-budget%2F2018-February%2F000167.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=LK44QT8E4ugM0N22DUYwOXK9q9ZvfJCuXGepl83cY9A%3D&reserved=0>. I will address them point-by-point below in my personal capacity.

As previously mentioned<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-sc-budget%2F2018-February%2F000168.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=IZx0zJFlnmjtGMVyJ9StxAqBsngQc8hqwa5YaX%2FC3aA%3D&reserved=0>, 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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fbm%2Fbriefing-materials-2-redacted-19apr17-en.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=p6puz5VtVgD%2FCsf149HtenVGD%2FYx0Wz%2FN%2BviPCEL8MU%3D&reserved=0> (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<mailto: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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacknight.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253627663&sdata=qNip2MUS61VevND9fCQqu6jEwKdDnC8omB8h3ysFlFU%3D&reserved=0>

https://blacknight.blog<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblacknight.blog&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253783916&sdata=hEZv1mUFxyKtAi5XA9diZ5%2BXWPkDrnmNWnVMJPf47EQ%3D&reserved=0> /

http://ceo.hosting/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fceo.hosting%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253783916&sdata=1O3cjnwqXMkWFXsW6nUG5GVPXiqaCikEKVtn0%2FGGJsY%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday 20 February 2018 at 03:48
To: Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>>
Cc: "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FpageId%3D74580769&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253783916&sdata=81L0dfd%2BI6K4sMCWPN9B5yoIe2i1zIhMnhHSFI6z3kI%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>

@berrycobb

_______________________________________________
Gnso-sc-budget mailing list
Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-sc-budget&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f59bba7f3264526012808d5787bfbc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547396253783916&sdata=J%2FLc76%2B7%2F1sg2vvBLZwmQTTJM1Rl0jVuhvXCdXFCUPQ%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180220/b143930d/attachment-0001.html>