<div>We all have different reasons for volunteering at ICANN. For some of us, it is satisfying being able to gain greater insights into how domain name system policy is formed, or to shape near-future developments that affect millions of Internet users worldwide. For others, being able to learn the language of policy, or building a network of people who are the top experts in their field, is why they are here. For our most active volunteers I don't know that they are motivated by the travel slots, though I agree it is important that they exist in order to sustain involvement in, and to legitimise, the multistakeholder process. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I just caution that they are not critical to us being able to shape policy, because I would not want people to feel unmotivated to volunteer here by a perceived disparity in travel slots. I don't think it's a critical issue for us at present for public ICANN meetings, though I do think it is a big deal outside of meetings, which is why I find it so troubling we do not have an Intersessional this year.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I admit I do find it incredible that ICANN supports the participation of those with more resources than ICANN, i.e. bringing in reps from Facebook or the Motion Picture Association of America, but it could be very dangerous for us to suggest that one GNSO constituency or stakeholder group should receive more or less resources than another. This could be a slippery slope come the GNSO Review, and could see some wanting to treat us differently on the basis of a perceived overlap with other parts of the community, for instance.<br></div><div><br></div><div>That said, I would suggest that we closely scrutinise the vast funding and resources assigned to the At Large Advisory Committee to ensure that all SO/ACs are receiving an equal and fair allocation in line with their responsibilities.<br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden<br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 8:44 AM, Raoul Plommer <plommer@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div>First, thanks for all the work you put into going through the budget Ayden, and raising relevant issues with your own analysis.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure if I'm a non-native English speaker, since I was born in Scotland but moved to Finland when I was one year old. I would definitely say that Finnish is my first language and I would also like to support wiping out translations into UN languages. I also agree with James, that judging by the ROI (I've not seen recent figures either, but I would think this hasn't changed), we really are spending a massive amount of money into just appearing inclusive. Mathematics and physics are also made in English by default and I've not heard that scientists all over the world are up in arms about it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would agree AND disagree about the CROP though. NPOC has already been able to use two of the slots (including one in Kobe) and I DID find it a bit weird, why NCUC didn't use their slot already in Barcelona. As I understand, NCUC is now using their first CROP slot in Kobe. That would still leave NCUC to use their remaining slots for RightsCon, EuroDIG and ICANN65, just to list some off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others too. I would agree, that CROP was really supposed to support outreach to these events outside the ICANN meetings and I do see mandatory use of the first slot to an ICANN meeting worse, than unnecessary.<br></div><div><br></div><div>My third issue would be to make a statement about the obvious disparity between commercial and non-commercial actors in ICANN. We should really be favored to even have an illusion of a balanced community. Apart from some feelings of saving the world, all we can offer our arduous volunteers, is experience working in an international community and travel slots. Since we can't really ask ICANN to pay any of us, we should at least have more travel slots, than what the commercial actors fleece off ICANN. If we can't get that, we could ask ICANN to cease their constituency support to the commercial actors. They can afford it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-Raoul<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 14:18, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Akriti,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Good question! I think implementation planning for Work Stream 2 is still under way, so I am not sure that I would expect to see funding for implementation in this budget. However some of these activities could be included within the rather large contingency figure (that ICANN does not break out). There are another two comments currently open for input; one on the Strategic Plan and priorities for 2021-2025, and the other on the two-year budgetary process. Perhaps one of these would be a suitable vehicle for commenting on WS 2 implementation?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes, Ayden <br></div><div class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087protonmail_signature_block"><div class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087protonmail_signature_block-proton gmail-m_-3988239963731195087protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 7:56 AM, Akriti Bopanna <<a href="mailto:00000762964d28d5-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">00000762964d28d5-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087protonmail_quote"><p>Hi all, <br></p><p>It was pointed out to me that the budget hasn't accounted for WS2
implementation costs which seems unwise at this point given the
magnitude of resources needed to fully effectuate the
recommendations. Would love to get any thoughts on why this wasn't
done so?<br></p><p>Thanks,<br></p><p>Akriti, <br></p><p>Center for Internet and Society<br></p><div>On 07/01/2019 10:12, Raphaël
Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Ayden, all <br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks a lot for all this info. I suppose indeed that there
is a form of discretion involved in Board decisions. I agree
that a macro view is also relevant in the context of our
comment.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Have a nice day,<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 6:29 AM Ayden Férdeline
<<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Raphael,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Once a year we have the opportunity to submit a Special
Budget Request to ICANN Org to request funding or resources
for an ad hoc project (after something has been funded for
three consecutive years, it generally becomes a part of the
core budget). In the past we have submitted requests for
training, website hosting and server maintenance, travel to
and registration for conferences like INTA, the IGF, and
RightsCon, and other projects which have been granted. Some
requests have been rejected as well. How ICANN Org
determines which requests to recommend the Board approve or
reject is something of a black box, at least to me. Other
support we have, and which forms a part of the current, core
budgetary process, is staff support. The NCSG has one FTE
whereas the ALAC has a good many more -- at least eight.
This is where we can also comment on the resourcing that we
don't receive, and which other parts of the community do and
which perhaps we would find useful, like
interpretation/translation services or software licensing,
i.e. for Slack.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But, I would stress, we should not only be reviewing the
budget for items which directly impact our Stakeholder Group
or Constituencies. The budget is where resources are
allocated to implement the policy/policies that the
community has developed. So it is also important - if not
more important - to monitor the budget to understand what
resources are being allocated (or not being allocated) in
furtherance of our policy objectives.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden Férdeline <br></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Friday, January 4, 2019 10:14 PM, Raphaël
Beauregard-Lacroix <<a href="mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090protonmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks for the clarification Ayden. Actually, when we
discuss funds, is there anything besides travel support
and money for administrative business like website and
the like? And what are the criteria under which ICANN
"allocates" funds (if there is such a thing) <br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kris
Seeburn <<a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" target="_blank">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>I would tend to agree on this point with Ayden.
The facts and outputs talks for itself.<br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><div><br></div></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><div>Kris Seeburn <br></div><div><a href="mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com" target="_blank">seeburn.k@gmail.com</a><br></div></div><div><span><img class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090proton-embedded gmail-m_-3988239963731195087proton-embedded proton-embedded" src="cid:168c2f2f33ba2f99bc12"></span><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px"><a href="http://linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/" target="_blank">linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/</a></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px">"Life is a Beach, it
all depends at how you look at it"</span></span></span><br></div><div><span><img class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090proton-embedded gmail-m_-3988239963731195087proton-embedded proton-embedded" src="cid:168c2f2f33bcdd47ddb1"></span><br></div></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 31 Dec 2018, at 16:24, Ayden Férdeline
<<a href="mailto:icann@FERDELINE.COM" target="_blank">icann@FERDELINE.COM</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Hi Raphael,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that
the ALAC mismanages its funds -- rather, I am
suggesting that there is not fairness in how
funds are being allocated, as the ALAC
receives significantly more resources than the
GNSO does. I do not begrudge the ALAC for
procuring such substantial resources; I just
think we need to be getting more assistance
too, as any objective observer would note that
the GNSO's outputs do exceed those of the
ALAC.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden Férdeline <br></div><div class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090gmail-m_1641212086695818539protonmail_signature_block"><div class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090gmail-m_1641212086695818539protonmail_signature_block-proton gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090gmail-m_1641212086695818539protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Saturday, December 29, 2018 3:39 PM,
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <<a href="mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="gmail-m_-3988239963731195087gmail-m_-6631568384382710789gmail-m_-7882805832741871090gmail-m_1641212086695818539protonmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thank you Ayden.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I think more flexibility around
translation and interpretation is a better
path forward. UN languages are the outcome
of a 1940's political choice. While there
are somewhat representative at the most
macro level, I don't see why they should
determine any statutorily availability of
languages services at ICANN.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Translation and interpretation achieve
different objectives and do not have the
same cost structure... While I think the
more translation the better (for purposes
of outreach and information),
interpretation should be provided more
flexibly and where it would be really
useful, e.g. in the local language of
where the ICANN meeting is taking place.
Maybe that is something that is already
done?<br></div><div><br></div><div>As for the analysis of FTE's by Ayden,
I think there might be accounting quirks
here and there that lead to some of those
issues. I don't see any harm in asking
though. I'm not sure however we are
necessarily in a position to directly
questions things such as choosing
salesforce over another CRM. At least I am
not; and even if we have individuals among
us who are, I don't necessarily think we
should focus on that.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Same with ALAC funding; on what basis
is ICANN allocating funds anyway? That a
constituency mismanages its funds (as you
seem to be alleging Ayden) is unfortunate,
but I don't think it is our place to point
fingers in the context of a public comment
like this. If GNSO/NCSG does not receive
its fair share (or whatever it is entitled
to), that is another deal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't have a view over the specifics
of how changes in numbers to either CROP
or other participation funding has
impacted engagement, policy output, etc,
so I'll pass on that in the context of the
budget comment.<br></div><div><br></div><div>A nice day or night to all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 1:06
PM James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>>
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>This seems like a much more
intelligent approach to me, rather
than pretending we are the UN with the
full access to resources that comes
with that! Strongly support putting
this into a comment against the budget
and also potentially into a letter to
the language services team directly.<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 28 Dec 2018, at 16:57,
Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" target="_blank">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px">As an
English speaker, I'm always a
bit hesitant about jumping
into this issue, as I know I
have the privilege/advantage
of having my native language
as the default. It's quite
possible that ICANN's main
concern here is the optics,
but that's not something to be
entirely discounted either. As
an organization that strives
to be international and
inclusive, I think they like
having a UN-esque model of
translation. Still - I wonder
if there isn't a better way of
doing things, like potentially
arranging an opt-in system,
where users could pre-request
language services for a
meeting, and they'd only be
provided if a certain number
of people registered for a
given language. That could
also help them be better
targeted as well - and have
interpreters in the sessions
where they're most needed, as
opposed to just in the main
rooms by default. May be
something that's worth
raising.</span></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>