[Gnso-sc-budget] [EXTERNAL] [v.0.9.2] Please review urgently - draft Council comment on the Budget

[Austin, Donna]

Thanks to Ayden and Berry for bringing these comments to this point.

I do have one overarching comment that I would like others to consider.

Our comments state that ‘we’ will be more efficient and effective in the use of our resources but we don’t indicate how we would do this.

Our comments call for others to be held accountable by way of metrics that speak to return on investment.

If we are serious in our claim that we will be more accountable then it might be helpful to request assistance from ICANN in identifying possible metrics that we might use. We did discuss in January the possibility of allocating budgets to PDPs and holding the WG Chairs accountable to the spend. ICANN has developed a dashboard that they use of the Review Teams (CCT, SSR, ATRT) that we may be able to adopt some form of regarding PDP management.  I’m concerned that our comments could be read as disingenuous if we don’t provide some indication of how we intend to hold ourselves accountable.

Donna
From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:47 AM
To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-sc-budget] [v.0.9.2] Please review urgently - draft Council comment on the Budget

Dear all,

Just a friendly reminder that we need to send our comment on the FY19 Budget through to the Council mailing list today for evaluation and review.

Unless I hear any objections, I plan to send through the attached file (with track changes marked to 'accepted') in 3 hours time at 17:30 UTC.

I did a quick fact check and couldn't find where the $8.1 million figure originated from re: increase in personnel costs. Document #2, page 9 says $7.3 million, so I've adjusted this now - but I would appreciate it if someone could please double check this.

The other changes I made were largely grammatical, replacing "implantation" on page 3 with "implementation", and reverting one sentence regarding GSE to a previous draft of our comment (please see my email here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Dsc-2Dbudget_2018-2DMarch_000261.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=GV0WjEg-2RTavQHjaHrmSnmRu3iua5ndTihysdoxyTQ&s=spDS3t_C-PQ2ymBEfJGvsVI8eJCnz3e2c3KOubMV7jw&e=>).

I have also flagged one edit on page 2, second bullet point of our specific comments. "SAs/Cs" was changed to "SGs/Cs". However "SGs/Cs" was the original language, and I believe the change to "SOs/Cs" originated from Marilyn. Marilyn could you please review this and kindly advise if this change to "SOs/Cs" was intentional? Thank you.

All - as a matter of priority could you please review the attached comment one last time and indicate if you have any concerns? Thank you very much.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180306/6ca3b92a/attachment.html>