[Gnso-sc-budget] Bullet point on personnel costs

[Stephanie Perrin]

I support it as well, see suggestions.

Stephanie

On 2018-03-04 16:35, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> I get both Heather and Dona points, but I think is a fair claim to say 
> as we audit the budget. I support to keep it as is.
>
> Cheers,
> Martín
>
>> On 2 Mar 2018, at 19:35, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM 
>> <mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In relation to the following bullet point on personnel expenditure:
>>
>> /● The GNSO Council is concerned by the growth in the organisation's 
>> personnel costs by $8.1 million (11%) over FY18. The overall budgeted 
>> personnel costs of $76.8 million comprise 56% of the $138 million 
>> budget, and a further $23.4 million, or 17% of the budget, is 
>> allocated to outside consultants, attorneys, and other "professional 
>> services." The GNSO Council believes that there is a need to stop the 
>> growth in the size of the organisation's staff, to review staff 
>> salaries, bonuses, and fringe benefits (particularly in the middle to 
>> top tiers of management), and to explore how as a proportion of the 
>> budget, personnel costs and the extraordinary spend on professional 
>> services can be decreased over time. In addition, as professional 
>> services are a significant spend now, we ask that there be more 
>> detail and clarification on what this entails. We are aware that some 
>> such services may incorporate call transcription services and 
>> additional policy staff support, but we would like to know what other 
>> kinds of services are bundled into this spend./
>>
>> We have received two comments:
>>
>> Heather Forrest:/"I would hesitate to go down this path, as I would 
>> expect some of this supports, perhaps in an indirect way, the work of 
>> the GNSO. Further, without an explicit link to our policy development 
>> I'm not sure it's solid ground for us to comment on."/
>>
>> Donna Austin: /"I know we all complain about this, but I wonder if 
>> there is a more constructive way to deliver the message."/
>>
>> In light of this feedback, *please can you indicate which of these 
>> options you support: *
>>
>> *1. Support including the bullet point as-is. *
>> *2. Support revising the bullet point - and please provide 
>> alternative text. *
>> *3. Prefer that this bullet point not be included in our comment. *
>> *4. Abstain. *
>>
>> *Thank you. *
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180304/5c295a57/attachment.html>