[Gnso-sc-budget] Question from member of GNSO Council

[Marilyn Cade]

I appreciate the discussion on this list. I am not sure that I understand the comment that the GNSO Council didn't know about the appointment of this group.  There was a webinar late in 2018, as I recall.

And following Goran's various blogs on the possible role of ICANN re its role, has included references to the need to understand the technical aspects of doing so, etc.

I am not sure that the group is "highly controversial" to everyone in the community.

Like Stephanie, I have followed the groups' work.  I had even considered whether they would have time for community engagement when they met f-f in Washington, DC, but my own circumstances prevented my devoting time to present that for their consideration, and as they were still in the forming stages, it probably would have been premature in any case.

This is a technical discussion and of course, it will have implications from policy decisions/recommendations but also ICANN Org decisions, and its recommendations will have implications for policy development, maybe even existing policy recommendations.

I am a big believer in "facts are our friends"; and I actually have often proposed, including when I was a BC councilor LONG AGO, that policy work should always be advised by technical experts who are independent.

I know that often GNSO Councilors who are very busy,  may encounter such efforts as additional work that now they need to be aware of and then turn back to their sending communities [SGs/Constituencies] and seek their input and then come back to the Council and it is a lot of work.

I don't see this group's work as perhaps impinging on the GNSO policy council authority or role.  BUT, as after all, engagement in policy also has to come from the broader communities, and as I understand it, this group will present a report -- maybe even as early as Kobe -- and then the report can be digested and analyzed by the various communities at ICANN.  So, my personal and individual suggestion is that all of us interested do what I think that Stephanie and I are doing -- reading the posts on an occasional basis, and following their work, but also encouraging others from our constituencies/SGs to do so as well.

And, then I'd propose that this group might propose a community wide Webinar, so that not just the GNSO Policy Councilors are briefed, but also their communities.

I think you are correct that the work of this group may be of implication to other work undertaken, so it might even be that a webinar -- even preliminary -- during February -- would be welcomed, so that our communities members can then prepare for a public session, if there is one, in Kobe.

As to whether the amount is too much, or what it covers, a project chartered by the ICANN CEO -- and yes, that is the role of the CEO/President, after all. So, making the funding public is important. But I do not support micro managing what is within the responsibility of the CEO/President, as long as the Board has reviewed and approved such projects, based on work that is within the scope and purpose of ICANN Org.  There were many requests For ICANN to take on accountability as a data controller and that has both legal, technical and political implications. It is the CEO/President's responsibility to explore all, I think.

I think we need to be just a little judicious about what this group takes on, versus what is sent back to the SGs/Constituencies as questions that this group hopes that such entities will explore in their individual budget/operating/strat plan public comments.

And I also congratulate again Ayden, Berry, and all of us on the GNSO-SC-Budget WG for our coherent, collegial and professional work!   It has already been helpful to me in my engagement in my constituency's own analysis.

The BC is fortunate to have a team from the BC's Finance Committee  and I know I can say that all four of us value the work that this WG does!

Marilyn Cade




________________________________
From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:39 PM
To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-sc-budget] Question from member of GNSO Council

A member of the GNSO Council has asked the following question:


> Hi Ayden,
>
> I failed to find traces of this highly controversial project in the budget
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fpublic-comments%2Fncap-project-plan-2018-03-02-en&data=02%7C01%7C%7C94b4ca5d443f4a06da0908d683eff989%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636841464033437362&sdata=3u2pAFol2Djrt5ysXKphJbBQVVAwhMIdwz8d68cgePU%3D&reserved=0
>
> (something like 3.6M with no obligations and really bad justification from SSAC)
>
> Do you see traces of it?
> If not - could we ask CFO if it is there at all?
>


I am forwarding along this question with the hope that the Finance team or Berry may be able to provide a response. Thank you!

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline
_______________________________________________
Gnso-sc-budget mailing list
Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-sc-budget&data=02%7C01%7C%7C94b4ca5d443f4a06da0908d683eff989%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636841464033437362&sdata=aXJOZbzDVe%2FLQ5xMQWiQnKLnCnDUAonUUXtuS2Lf3O8%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20190127/7aa6f7d9/attachment.html>