[WP1] Budget

[Drazek, Keith]

The FY-16 budgeting process was a vast improvement over previous years. It included much greater detail, visibility and consultation earlier in the process. ICANN staff deserve kudos for this progress.

That doesn't take away from the CWG requirements or the necessary community powers identified long ago by the CCWG. 

Speaking personally, I could live with indirect enforcement of a community budget veto, or operating plan veto  as Cherine has suggested. In my view, this is one of the reasons I believe the RySG could support a Sole Designator model as a compromise and hopefully consensus position.

Keith 



> On Oct 9, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 09-Oct-15 13:28, Asha Hemrajani wrote:
>> “IF only we could find a way to co-operate” - these imply that the
>> current processes do not work.  How do you know they don’t work and
>> that there was no co-operation? Were any of you a part of the FY16
>> budget process?
> 
> 
> I wasn't part of the FY16 process, only so many things one person can
> do, though others in my SG were.  I think the last I participated in was
> in 2014. Though over the decade I have had many opportunities to
> participate in budget issues and have always found the budget folks
> quite pleasant and accommodating.
> 
> I consider it quite a good consultative process, but as I discuss in my
> previous note, I consider that different from a cooperative process
> where a decision is arrived at mutually on the budget.  This is what I
> think we neither have nor have tried to ask for.  Though I would,
> personally, not mind seeing something like that.
> 
> avri
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>