[Gnso-sc-budget] FW: Action Item from Kobe for the SCBO

[mail at berrycobb.com]

Hi All,

 

Please find attached some materials to help inform this action item of comparing the GNSO-SCBO and CCNSO-SOPC comments regarding the 5-Year Strategic Planning (5YSP).  

 

First, you will recall that the first version of the 5YSP was posted for public comment that closed in Feb 2019.  Below are direct links to key artifacts:

*	Public Comment Proceeding: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/strategic-plan-2018-12-20-en
*	GNSO Submission: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-strategic-plan-20dec18/2019q1/000009.html
*	CCNSO Submission: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-strategic-plan-20dec18/2019q1/000005.html
*	Public Comment Proceeding Report:  [attached] posted 29 March 2019

 

I was asked to provide a summary of the GNSO and CCNSO submissions.  The summary of comments report produced by Finance staff does a good job of grouping like comments across all submissions.  It is worth a quick review and you can easily spot SOPC and GNSO comments.  Having reviewed both submissions again, I didn’t find much that contrasted between the two.  However, it seemed the one concern identified by Giovanni’s comments in Kobe still remain…..what criteria was used for how objectives and goals were selected.  The background of the public proceeding outlines the process in how the community was consulted via series of community and staff engagement sessions that informed the early stages of the 5YSP process.  However, I suspect the CCNSO was looking for something more specific, and I’m unsure if their issue still exists given the revised 5YSP document.

 

Since this action item was assigned in Kobe and if you didn’t notice, ICANN Org published a revised version the 5YSP on the 23rd (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2019-05-23-en) and I’ve attached the revised version for quick reference.  I also attached a file using Adobe’s Acrobat Pro 2017 to do a compare from the prior and current 5YSP versions.  This is the first time I’ve used this feature, so I’m unsure how it will work on older versions or reader only software, but it pretty handy.  Please report back your experience.  Anyhow, it is a side by side comparison that highlights changes between the two files.  I recommend zooming out to view both documents in one window.  The left side is the first version while the right side is the version released on the 23rd.  

 

In reviewing the GNSO Council’s comments and this new draft, it appears many of the comments were incorporated while others were less clear due to a substantial change in wording of the Goal, Targeted Outcome or Risk.  If I recall the 5YSP timeline correctly, the draft 5-Year Operating Plan and Budget (5YOPB) will be released in the near term to compliment the revised 5YSP.  After your review, please advise if an SCBO meeting should be scheduled to further discuss this topic and next steps if any.

 

Lastly, there were two other comments provided by Ayden in Kobe regarding the Contingency allocation from the draft FY budget and replenishment of the reserve fund.  These two areas are not mentioned within the 5YSP.

 

Thank you.

 

B

 

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobbb

 

From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 10:35
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: mail at berrycobb.com; gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: Action Item from Kobe for the SCBO

 

Hi Keith,

 

Thanks for flagging this action item.

 

Berry, would it be possible for you to please prepare a summary of the ccNSO comment and ours, grouping the comments together by common themes, so that we can review, compare and contrast our respective responses?

 

We can then evaluate whether we need to have a call to discuss further or can exchange our views on the mailing list instead. Thank you!

 

Kind regards,

 

Ayden Férdeline 

 

 

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Friday, 24 May 2019 17:33, Drazek, Keith via Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org> > wrote:

 

Ayden, all,

 

We need the SCBO to close out this action item before our next session with the ccNSO in Marrakech.

 

Please advise on an expected completion date.

 

Thanks,

Keith

 

From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:21 AM

To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org> 

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-sc-budget] FW: Action Item from Kobe for the SCBO

 

Hi All,

 

I prepared the email below in response to Keith’s assignment of an action item about the 5 Year Strategic Plan from ICANN65.  I only now realized this did not get sent to the SCBO list.

 

Ayden, after review, please advise how you’d like to proceed.

 

Thank you.

 

B

 

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobbb

 

From: mail at berrycobb.com <mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> > 

Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 08:48

To: 'Drazek, Keith' <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com> >

Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> >

Subject: RE: [Gnso-sc-budget] Action Item from Kobe for the SCBO

 

Hi All,

 

To assist with the action item Keith mentioned below, I’m providing links to the GNSO’s and CCNSO’s comments on the 5 Year Strategic Plan for comparison.  I’ve also provided a segment of the transcript of the GNSO/CCNSO Council session in Kobe for reference.  Having read through it, the conversation also touched on the FY20 Draft Budget which included a comment on clarity around the Contingency bucket as well as Reserve Fund replenishment.  Thus, it’s not entirely clear what the exact ask is other than to compare comments on common ground for future collaboration as Keith notes.  Ayden, please advice how you think the SCBO should proceed and I’m happy to assist where needed.  Thank you.  B

 

CCNSO:  https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-strategic-plan-20dec18/2019q1/000005.html

 

GNSO:  https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-strategic-plan-20dec18/2019q1/000009.html

 

 

Katrina Sataki: Yes thank you. Thank you very much. Unfortunately we have to try to speed up the session. Next on our agenda, there are comments about ICANN's 2021 - 2025 strategic plan FY’20 operating plan and budget. Are there any common concerns? So our SOPC Working Group as always has submitted their comments. I know - how should we proceed with that taking into account that we had excellent lunch and didn't start on time?  Maybe, Giovanni, really very briefly the comments that - Giovanni is the Chair of the SOPC, that’s why I refer back to him. 

 

Giovanni Seppia: Yes, very briefly indeed the SOPC, Strategic Operating Planning – Committee of the ccNSO has produced comments on the ICANN fiscal year ’20 operating plan and budget on the ICANN draft strategic budget 2021-2025 and also the two-year planning process. We had an interesting meeting yesterday with the Finance Department where we were provided some updates regarding the strategic plan and also the way they are going to present as it was also said in the opening ceremony this morning, the operating plan 2021 and 2025 which is going to be presented to us in a high level format by June and in its full extent by the end of the year.  So there were, let’s say there was the main concern of the CC community,

the SOPC, let’s say numbers was about the fact that especially for the strategic plan we do not - we fail to understand the criteria that ICANN has used to select one - the objectives and the goals that (tie) in the plan because there are several times, there is reference to the fact that those objectives and goals were selected among wide range of objectives and goals and there's no reference to those that then turned down against those that have been selected.  As we heard this morning, and it’s also present in all these plans, there is some sort of pressure on ICANN. They mentioned several times about challenges in the future and that their strategic plan is crucial.  So the SOPC did comment that we would like to have a better understanding of what the criteria for selecting those objectives and as a overall comment we also stress again that it’s quite important to improve the narrative of those plans if they want to improve the level of engagement of the community especially from non-UK, non, let’s say, English mother tongue because those plans are not so easy sometimes to go through and read if you do not own the language but also if you do own the language sometimes the narrative is quite challenging. Thank you.

 

Keith Drazek: Thank you very much, Giovanni. I think in the interest of time we probably should make a - take an action item to do a comparison of the comments that were submitted from our respective groups. That was an excellent overview and summary. I’m going to ask Ayden if you have any - just very brief comments because we're running short on time, but I think it would make very good sense for us to, now that the comments have been finalized and submitted, to compare the two and to identify any areas of common cause for concern. So Ayden.

 

Ayden Férdeline: Thanks very much. Ayden Férdeline for the record. And I’m the Chair of the GNSO Council Standing Committee on Budget and Operations. And we also reviewed the proposed operating plan and budget for the coming fiscal year.

We had many similar concerns as to what you expressed in your comment.  One additional comment that we had was that we asked in our comment for ICANN to provide more clarity around what is included in the contingency.  And so we did ask that moving forward rather than being just one single lump sum for contingency we asked to understand how is that actually comprised.  One comment that - I’m making this now in my personal capacity - that you made in your comment that I thought was very interesting and that I would like to understand better and that I plan to take back to the standing committee was you said that in order to reserve the - replenish the reserve fund over the coming years there's going to be some kind of optimization amongst ICANN Org. And so what is the plan for that? What is that going to look like? And so I think that’s a very good question that you asked and certainly something that as an action item I think we would like to be looking into as well.  But absolutely, I think Keith raises an excellent point that we should certainly look to conduct a more thorough evaluation of both of our comments to see where there is overlaps and differences and hope to work with you closely over the coming year as well. Thanks.

 

Keith Drazek: Okay thanks very much, Ayden. Okay so we need to move onto the next topic is a question on selecting the IFRT membership…….

 

 

Thank you.

 

B

 

 

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobbb

 

From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via Gnso-sc-budget

Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 17:44

To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org <mailto:gnso-sc-budget at icann.org> 

Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> 

Subject: [Gnso-sc-budget] Action Item from Kobe for the SCBO

 

Hi Ayden, all,

 

I’m working through GNSO Council Action Items from Kobe and wanted to flag one for you and the SCBO.

 

Following our discussion with the ccNSO, the SCBO agreed to review the GNSO Council and ccNSO Council comments on the 5-year Strategic Plan to identify any areas of common ground and opportunities for future collaboration.

 

Thanks in advance for the SCBO’s focus on this.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,

Keith

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20190601/d51e918a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: [Compare Report] revised-strategic-plan-2021-2025-draft-23may19-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2232223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20190601/d51e918a/CompareReportrevised-strategic-plan-2021-2025-draft-23may19-en-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: report-comments-strategic-plan-29mar19-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 117033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20190601/d51e918a/report-comments-strategic-plan-29mar19-en-0001.pdf>