[Gnso-sc-budget] v0.9.1 Draft of Comments to FY19 Budget and OPs Plan

[Ayden Férdeline]

(personal capacity)

Thanks all, I think the comment is in better shape now and I can live with most of the suggested edits in this version of the document, including the current text on personnel costs.

One question - I am wondering if "implantation" on page 3 is the right word, or if this is a typo? Do we mean "implementation"?

Finally, I preferred the following sentence in the previous draft of our comment:

"At ICANN 59, GSE presented to the Council about their activities along with Finance in response to the Council's comment on the FY18 budget. As promised then, the GNSO Council awaits availability of measures of success as it relates to global engagement activities to ensure that they are all closely aligned with ICANN's mission, and assess how activities meet these criteria."

Unless this promised was fulfilled and the GSE did respond to concerns taken on notice, I prefer the above language to the following revision in the current draft:

"We specifically recall here presentations made by GSE to the GNSO Council at ICANN 59 in relation to outreach activities, and comments from ICANN Finance in response to the Council's comment on the FY18 budget. The GNSO Council reiterates its emphasis on the need for clear measures of success as this relates to global engagement activities to ensure that such activities are closely aligned with ICANN's mission, and assess how activities meet these criteria."

Thank you again to all those who have worked on this document,

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 6 March 2018 12:49 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Berry,
>
> Sincere thanks for your hard work and very quick turnaround. I'm seizing the opportunity of a 3:30am wakeup (thanks, jetlag) to add my stylistic (rather than substantive) edits to Berry's draft.
>
> Berry has made a valiant attempt at dealing with the point on staff salaries, etc, but we need to be sure that he isn't put in an awkward position as a staff member commenting on this particular matter. I personally still feel the point should be made more succinctly and high-level, something to the effect: "The GNSO Council appreciates the need for ICANN org to carefully evaluate its staff costs during periods of budgetary pressure competing with high work volume. The GNSO Council discussed this point in detail, and ultimately does not believe that it is appropriate to comment specifically on salaries or related expenditures except to reiterate our concern for prioritization of policy development activities, which are core to ICANN's mission."
>
> I suspect this won't suit everyone on the drafting team, so if others can find tweaks to improve and to get us to a happy place here, I would be grateful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Heather
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Apologies for the delay.  Based on discussions during today’s call, there was a fair amount of changes to the current draft.  Please take a look at the proposed edits as suggested by members of the SCBO.  GNSO Council leadership, please also take a close look as these will be submitted under your signatures.
>>
>> We were supposed to send this latest draft to the Council at CoB today, but I suggest we wait until tomorrow to give our European colleagues adequate time to respond to this draft.  I can send this to Council on SCBO’s behalf by 15:00 UTC or so.
>>
>> Please let me know how I may be of service to carry this across the finish line.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> B
>>
>> Berry A. Cobb
>>
>> [720.839.5735](tel:(720)%20839-5735)
>>
>> mail at berrycobb.com
>>
>> @berrycobb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180306/1d98ff54/attachment.html>