[Gnso-sc-budget] [EXTERNAL] Re: Fw: [council] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan

Fri Mar 2 22:05:26 UTC 2018

Ayden - my understanding is that the plan is to replenish the RF within 5 years. My idea with the two year target was to set a date until when clarification about the complete process must be achieved. Don't take the two year target literally. Maybe it can be done quicker and maybe a two-years deadline is not even needed. But, somehow I'm doubtful about the five years plan if nothing more drastic is done. Currently the plan is to request from Auction Proceeds the amount that was spent for the IANA transition and the rest from the cuts we're currently debating. But is this adding up? 

The GNSO is the only entity that is going to be able to request a serious RF planning process. 

I hope this helps. 
Erika 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for this language, Erika.
> 
> Can I please clarify - are you proposing that the Reserve Fund be replenished over the course of two years, or that ICANN org carry out a review and come back with a plan within the next two years on how the Reserve Fund could be replenished?
> 
> I note that on the Reserve Fund webinar yesterday, a proposal was put forward that would see the Reserve Fund replenished over the course of five years. I don't have the slide deck handy, but I did take the attached screenshot which outlines the proposed strategy. I hope this might be helpful.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden  
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 1 March 2018 3:39 PM, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ayden ... Donna's concern are very valid. How about expressing them directly in being more explicit in saying something along these lines "The GNSO is interested in seeing a plan for the reserve fund developed that reviews all options to replenish the fund in a sustainable way over the course of the next two years (comment: by then it should be clear as well how much money ICANN needs to keep reserved for litigation purposes/gTLD. Currently the amount is quite high. I assume that a realistic judgment allows to target a much smaller amount. If my judgement is correct, then part of the money for the replenishment could come from this source) focusing (? primarily?) on the operational budget. (? An increase in fees should not be considered?) 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Erika 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:53 PM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Ayden
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> You are correct, the Council did submit comments on the Reserve Fund, so perhaps it would make sense to reiterate those:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> At the request of the GNSO Council, a standing committee of Councilors reviewed the draft Reserve Fund Target Level and examined the rationale, focusing especially on how this may impact the GNSO Council and operations of ICANN Org especially when unplanned events may require ICANN to access funds from its reserve. In discussions during the 30 November 2017 GNSO Council meeting, concerns were raised in relation to the level of reserve funding available, the availability and source of such funds, and the need for fiscal prudence. As to specific recommendations on each of these points we direct your attention to the specific views submitted by Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There is a concern for contracted parties that ICANN will consider increasing fees as a way to replenish the Reserve Fund or raise funding more generally to meet operational requirements. To that end, I have concerns about how ICANN could consider statements by the Council that ICANN must be more ambitious in its plans to replenish the fund.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Donna
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:56 PM
>>> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
>>> Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Fw: [council] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Michele-
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A quick response from me in my personal capacity:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure it is out of scope for the Council to comment on the Reserve Fund. Late last year the Council did provide input on the desired Reserve Fund level, and given it pertains to the stability of ICANN org, I believe it is within the Council's remit to comment as we have. I think our language at present is very mild.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> However I am happy to hear other perspectives on this point.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ayden  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> 
>>> On 28 February 2018 11:22 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ayden  / All
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Some further input / suggestions attached from Donna, but supported by the CPH
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Michele
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>> 
>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>> 
>>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>> 
>>> https://www.blacknight.com/
>>> 
>>> https://blacknight.blog/
>>> 
>>> https://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 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday 27 February 2018 at 16:35
>>> To: "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [Gnso-sc-budget] Fw: [council] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Please see below (and attached) the communication that I have sent to the Council today.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ayden  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> 
>>> On 27 February 2018 10:31 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On behalf of the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached the latest working draft of our comments on the FY19 Budget for your review.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> As mentioned on our Council call last Thursday, we are seeking to submit these comments on behalf of the Council on 8 March absent any objections from a member of the Council.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Please can you review the attached file by close of business in your timezone this Friday, 2 March. We will then consider your comments on our call on Monday, 5 March and submit a revised version of this comment for your final review immediately after our call on Monday. Thank you very much.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>> 
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-sc-budget mailing list
>>> Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget
> 
> <Screenshot 2018-03-01 18.27.43.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180302/b56d216a/attachment-0001.html>