[Comments-draft-opplan-budget-fy21-25-20dec19] C. Langdon-Orr Personal Comments re FY21-FY25 Operating and Financial Plan

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Please find inline below and attache my personal comments'


Firstly as a long-time active ICANN participant and reader of a long
history of Operating and Financial Plans, let me note my gratitude and
appreciation for the continued improvements in the accessibility of
information/data and general readability over the last few years and
specifically complement this current document which in my view allows for
several ‘levels’ of reader enquiry into the important material and data
contained within, in particular, improved cross-referencing and the use of
5 year and 1-year details.

Secondly, I also note the overall conservative yet well-considered nature
of the planned expenditure, from modest growth predictions, for these
operational and strategic activities overall, (a reflection of course of
the highly professional work of the team involved with the Plans
development and production, however concerning Budget Çontingenecy
provision, specifically for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures policy
development process • Specific and Organizational Reviews • Policy
development and compliance required by the European Union’s General Data
Protection Regulation • Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
Accountability Work Stream 2, all of which I admit I have a keen interest
or involvement with, does give me slight I hope unfounded concern, that it
may be too conservative and risk some diminution of possible progress or
commitment to these activities as they come into play quite possible as
processes and projects that overlap in time.  Perhaps consideration or a
higher provision percentage and then not exceeding expenditure being seen
as good fiscal management would be a preferred approach, on these
key/critical matters. This would have the added benefit of not risking as
likely the need to as was required previously to ‘dip into the Reserve
Funds to complete time-critical ICANN/Community activities.

Regarding the Annexed Document "Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model
Work Plan:" my brief responses to the specific questions posed follow:

   1.

   Are the right entities suggested to take the lead in developing an
   approach or solution to an identified issue? If not, which entity would be
   appropriate?
   -

      Yes, I believe they are, providing that each sees themselves as the
      convenor or prime facilitator of an ICANN Community-wide interactive
      process, that engages the ICANN.Org and relevant staff support..
      2.

   How can the ICANN community effectively coordinate the work of
   developing approaches and solutions?
   -

      Communication and opportunity for equitable input and interaction (a
      mix of Face to Face and intercessional work) will be key to this if it is
      going to be effective or successful within the ICANN-MSM model.
Change is
      always resisted by some in any situation and experienced facilitators or
      change agents might also be a useful tool to deploy in various stage of
      these processes.
      3.

   How should the six issues included in the work plan be prioritized?
   -

      As one of the Co-Chairs of ATRT3 that is going to make
      recommendations regarding prioritisation of Key ICANN Activities
and Review
      Team/ CCWG etc., Recommendations to date, I would recommend that
specifics
      of that proposal are applied to these six issues being triaged (sorted in
      order of action) But my personal view of matters to be addressed
would be:-
      1.

         1st ICANN deal with #6 the delegation of Roles and
         Responsibilities, (ensuring wider ICANN Community ‘buy-in’;
         2.

         2nd #5 Precision Scoping (now that GNSO Council has Resolved
         adoption of PDP 3.0) it is essential to establish with the wider ICANN
         Community what their opinions/acceptance/reactions to the
details of PDP3.0
         is across the ACSOs, but also but the most fragile of many of
our process
         plans in ICANN seems to me to be a problem with proper
scoping of planned
         activities. It could be effective and efficient to also deal with #4
         Complexity as an issue in parallel with the mater of Scoping.
         3.

         3rd #1 Consensus, Representatives and Inclusivity, may to some
         extent be a product of the success (or not) of the other Community
         interactions relating to the identified Issues.  But this could be
         addressed in parallel to others identified.
         4.

          #2 Prioritisation and Effective Use of Resources and #4 Culture
         Trust and Silos could be addressed as Overarching issues throughout a
         process that ques the other matter.





<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-draft-opplan-budget-fy21-25-20dec19/attachments/20200224/ac12edbb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLO Personal Comments re FY21-FY25 Operating and Financial Plan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-draft-opplan-budget-fy21-25-20dec19/attachments/20200224/ac12edbb/CLOPersonalCommentsreFY21-FY25OperatingandFinancialPlan.pdf>