<div>Forwarding on behalf of Stephanie -</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p><span class="size" style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span class="font" style="font-family:Lucida Grande">I agree with Ayden
that we could use some cat herders here. Also drafters of
course. Had someone hounded me, I might have dragged myself
away from a different drafting deadline to go over the draft
comment. Cat herding is a great job for someone who feels
they might not have the expertise to write the comment....a
team of cat herders who could help us watch deadlines would be
most appreciated. Some of us are on several committees and
working groups, and we just plain forget the time. We do need
more people to get engaged, and help.</span></span><br></p><p><span class="size" style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span class="font" style="font-family:Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie
Perrin</span></span><br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-05-02 17:56, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Hi Michael,<br></div><div><br></div></div><div><div>It is true that cc'ing an extra email into a thread is not a
difficult task, and I try to do it where I can. However, it is
not that the NCSG's procedural complexity is beyond
comprehension, it is that the issues we are responding to often
require background knowledge. Please don't misunderstand me
here; I think a lot of what we do at the moment in terms of
gathering input is mere tokenism and we need to somehow
implement a framework with more contemporary notions of
participation, but this is not easy to do. <br></div><div> <br></div><div> I think the challenge is less that these issues are complicated
(though they are) but that we are volunteers and do not have
people here who are solely responsible for communicating
concepts, facilitating input, herding the cats... I see
participation as a lot like eating spinach. No one is against it
in principle because we all accept it is good, but there's a
real difference between going through the empty ritual of
participation and doing it in a way that actually affects the
outcome of the process.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user "><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><div><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">linkedin.com/in/ferdeline</a><br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton
protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: comments on the ICANN budget<br></div><div>Local Time: 2 May 2017 10:17 PM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 2 May 2017 21:17<br></div><div>From: <a href="mailto:mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM</a><br></div><div>To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br></div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Great suggestion Nadira, and perhaps more of this kind of
delegation would strengthen engagement, lighten the load on
those already volunteering, and provide more decentralized,
bottom-up, and inclusive governance.<br></div><div><br></div><div>With that said, I also want to stress that adding an
email to CC is far from a difficult task. Not including the
community in open deliberations is unacceptable. If our
procedural complexity is beyond comprehension, then we need
to seriously reevaluate how we expect anyone without 5-10
years of experience and a PhD or JD to get involved.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13px">Best,</span></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13px">-Michael</span></span><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Nadira Alaraj <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Dear
Tapani and all,<br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">I
wanted to give a suggestion based your following
paragraph regarding lack of resource.<br></div><span class=""><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">"<span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif"><i>I don't see any reason to accuse
or blame anyone here, the fault lies</i></span><br></div><div><i>simply in our lack of resources, too much
work for too few people.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;display:inline">"<br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div></span><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Given
the fact that "<b><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(85, 85, 85)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:14px">NCUC's membership has
reached 570 members, including 119
noncommercial organizations and 451
individuals. </span></span></span></b>"<br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">When
there is a lack of resources, the community
membership is not engaged and that is alerting
because no one wants to end up of mere number of
membership. <br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Instead
of putting the load on the Policy Committee to do
the comments on behalf of the whole community, why
not to split their tasks to increase the
productivity, by creating different sub-teams to the
PC to utilize the diversity of knowledge among the
community by assigning theme to each sub-team to
prepare the comments with the lead of experienced PC
before being shared with the community as a whole. <br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">The
question that occurs in any one's mind, what would
be the motivation of the volunteers in the
sub-teams? What I can think of right now, but others
might have other ideas, is to give sub-team members
priority over other applicants for fellowships. <br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Best,<br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Nadira <br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"> <br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Tapani
Tarvainen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div>Hi Michael,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Policy Committee is in charge of
endorsing comments on behalf of NCSG,<br></div><div>so decisions about that have to take
place in PC list and the way for<br></div><div>people to get their comments endorsed
as NCSG comments is to ask for<br></div><div>support from the PC.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Of course discussion could and in
general should occur on this list,<br></div><div>too, but when time is short, as it
regrettably often is, people tend<br></div><div>to do only what *must* be done. It
would have been nice for for some<br></div><div>PC member to relay discussion about
this to the general list (and as a<br></div><div>member of PC I'm guilty here as well),
but sometimes we aren't able to<br></div><div>do things in an optimal way.<br></div><div><br></div><div>You can read the entire thread about
Ed's comment in the PC list<br></div><div>following the link he posted below. Ed
made a comment and notified the<br></div><div>PC, there was talk about endorsing it
as NCSG comment but for whatever<br></div><div>reason that never got anywhere -
probably people were simply too busy.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't see any reason to accuse or
blame anyone here, the fault lies<br></div><div>simply in our lack of resources, too
much work for too few people.<br></div><div><span class="m_3774417797213394390gmail-HOEnZb"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(136, 136, 136)"><br>--<br> Tapani Tarvainen</span></span></div><div><div class="m_3774417797213394390gmail-h5"><div><br></div><div>On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:36:09PM
+0200, Michael Oghia (<a href="mailto:mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">mike.oghia@GMAIL.COM</a>)
wrote:<br></div><div>><br></div><div>> Thank you Ed for the
clarification. Does anyone know why
this wasn't<br></div><div>> discussed more on this list?<br></div><div>><br></div><div>> Best,<br></div><div>> -Michael<br></div><div>><br></div><div>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:30
PM, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div>><br></div><div>> > Hi Milton,<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > As too often is the case,
you rush to personal attack without
first<br></div><div>> > determining the facts.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > From the NCSG PC list (<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/">https://lists.ncsg.is/piperma<wbr>il/ncsg-pc/2017-April/</a><br></div><div>> > 000515.html )<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > ___<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Hi Rafik,<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > I’d like to thank those
who stepped in to contribute to the
budget<br></div><div>> > comment. I sadly disagree
with the tone and much of the content
of the<br></div><div>> > document. I do not
endorse it.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > There was no way for me
to edit the document without
completely deleting<br></div><div>> > much of what had
previously been written there. I just
didn’t feel that was<br></div><div>> > an appropriate thing to
do.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Rather I have completed
and submitted to the Comments Forum a
Personal<br></div><div>> > Comment, which I am
attaching to this post. I welcome
those who have<br></div><div>> > stepped up to do the NCSG
comment to consider what I had to say,
borrow<br></div><div>> > from my post, or
disregard it completely.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > My objection to the NCSG
comment as written consists of the
following<br></div><div>> > objections:<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > 1. I believe it is too
negative and accusatory and fails to
recognize the<br></div><div>> > hard work done by Finance
and the unique nature of the first
year of the<br></div><div>> > Empowered Community.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > I have major problems
with the process, and have expressed
them in my<br></div><div>> > Comment, along with
suggested ways of improving
cooperation and community<br></div><div>> > input. However, I don’t
believe any slights were deliberate or
intentional.<br></div><div>> > I believe the Community,
including myself, erred in placing so
many hard<br></div><div>> > deadlines on Finance as
part of the budget process in the new
Bylaws. This<br></div><div>> > is a year of adaptation
but generalized critical comments
without specific<br></div><div>> > proposed solutions serve
no purpose. And that is what much of
the proposed<br></div><div>> > NCSG comment consists of.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > 2. I find the objections
to ALAC expenditures to appear as a
stand alone<br></div><div>> > attack on the AC. There
are a number of areas of expenditure
that many of<br></div><div>> > us would find
questionable. Why focus only on these
in the absence of<br></div><div>> > criticism of other
questionable expenses?<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > 3. I don’t find staff
retreats to be among the most pressing
fiscal<br></div><div>> > matters. After all, as a
supplemental request components of the
NCSG asked<br></div><div>> > for their own retreats
and the GNSO Council was actually
granted one.<br></div><div>> > Should we not first
oppose these retreats or is there a
reason staff<br></div><div>> > retreats are so onerous?<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > 4. As noted in my
personal comment, my biggest concern
involves the lack<br></div><div>> > of funding priority for
core policy activities. I have focused
on one<br></div><div>> > unfunded proposal – that
of $100,000 for external PDP support –
and would<br></div><div>> > encourage the NCSG to
consider adopting this view.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Although I can not
endorse the comment, out of respect
for the work done<br></div><div>> > on the document I will
not oppose it. I will abstain and hope
my comments<br></div><div>> > above as well as those in
my personal comment will be considered
by the PC.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Regrettably, I have some
domestic responsibilities to attend to
this<br></div><div>> > evening that must take
priority over my volunteer activities
here. Consider<br></div><div>> > my abstention to be a
permament one and feel free to borrow
from, or<br></div><div>> > ignore, my offerings on
this matter.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Best,<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Ed Morris<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> >
______________________________<wbr>______________________________<wbr>______________<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Public comments are the
purview of the NCSG Policy Committee,
not the NCSG<br></div><div>> > Finance Committee. With
rare exceptions, discussions of the
content of the<br></div><div>> > public comments occur
within the PC and not on the DISCUSS
list. Maybe that<br></div><div>> > is something we should
re-think, however that problem is not
unique to this<br></div><div>> > comment. If you’d like to
know why the NCSG did not submit a
public comment<br></div><div>> > on the budget I’d suggest
you read the NCSG PC archives, ask the
NCSG PC<br></div><div>> > Chair or ask those who
volunteered to write the comment at
the last NCSG PC<br></div><div>> > meeting.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Contrary to your
assertion, Milton, as above, I did
share my comments with<br></div><div>> > those who stepped forward
to draft the comment for the Policy
Committee. I<br></div><div>> > should note that I was
not one of those who volunteered to
draft this<br></div><div>> > comment for the PC. As a
member of the P.C., though, I saw
things I<br></div><div>> > disagreed with in what
was being done and shared my views. We
were all on<br></div><div>> > deadline, though, which
made things difficult. In fact, one
P.C. observer<br></div><div>> > suggested the NCSG might
want to endorse my comment (although
qualifying<br></div><div>> > her comment by stating
she had yet to read my comment and may
not even<br></div><div>> > agree with her
suggestion) (<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/">https://lists.ncsg.is/</a><br></div><div>> >
pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/0<wbr>00518.html
).<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Not much else I can say
Milton. You seem to delight in
attacking me<br></div><div>> > personally, facts
notwithstanding. I hope you had fun.
You can criticize me<br></div><div>> > for being late to the
conversation, but this is a volunteer
position and I<br></div><div>> > was busy elsewhere early
in the comment period. I guess that
doesn’t fit<br></div><div>> > your narrative, a
narrative which has little to do with
fact.<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> > Ed Morris<br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> ><br></div></div></div><div>> >
------------------------------<br></div><div><br></div><div class="m_3774417797213394390gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="m_3774417797213394390gmail-h5"><div>> ><br></div><div>> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at
4:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">milton@gatech.edu</a>><br></div><div>> > wrote:<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> I was interested in
the public comments on ICANN's budget
- I believe<br></div><div>> >> this is the first one
since the transition.<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> I noticed that all
stakeholder groups and constituencies
except NCSG<br></div><div>> >> filed comments on the
budget. I was disappointed to see that
instead of a<br></div><div>> >> NCSG comment we have
a lone individual, Ed Morris,
commenting with his<br></div><div>> >> personal opinions.
Since Ed is supposed to be the chair
of our NCSG finance<br></div><div>> >> committee, one would
have thought that he would post his
comments to the<br></div><div>> >> NCSG list for some
feedback.<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> Ed's comments (<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail</a><br></div><div>> >>
/comments-fy18-budget-08mar17/<wbr>attachments/20170428/440be454/<br></div><div>> >>
budgetcomment-0001.pdf) make it clear
that they are his personal<br></div><div>> >> opinions and not
necessarily those of the NCSG, but I
find this very odd.<br></div><div>> >> Normally, if you file
comments individually, it is because
you tried to<br></div><div>> >> achieve NCSG
consensus but could not. In that case,
it's OK for folks to<br></div><div>> >> file comments to
reflect the different views.<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> In this case, Ed made
no effort to inform the group of his
views on the<br></div><div>> >> budget, much less
attempt to gain some support for them.
I think this is<br></div><div>> >> not acceptable. The
Chair of our Finance Committee needs
to think of<br></div><div>> >> himself as a delegate
of the SG, not as someone who goes off
into a silo<br></div><div>> >> and does whatever he
wants, without even informing the
members who<br></div><div>> >> appointed him.<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> This becomes more
serious when one realizes that in his
comments, Ed<br></div><div>> >> basically threatens
ICANN with rejecting the entire budget
because of a<br></div><div>> >> disagreement over a
small item. He says:<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> "Unless bound by my
Support Group to support this budget,
I would be<br></div><div>> >> inclined to favor
rejecting the entire budget when it
comes back to the<br></div><div>> >> GNSO Council if this
amount is not restored to the budget
prior its final<br></div><div>> >> adoption."<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> I am not sure what Ed
means by his "support group" but
presumably that<br></div><div>> >> means his Stakeholder
Group and/or Constituency. But how are
we supposed to<br></div><div>> >> "bind" him to favor
or oppose the budget if we don't even
know that he has<br></div><div>> >> made this threat?<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> In sum, I am sure we
all appreciate the willingness of
volunteers to go<br></div><div>> >> through the budget
and make sense of it, but our
delegates to these<br></div><div>> >> committees have to
understand that they are agents of
NCSG and it is their<br></div><div>> >> responsibility to
liaise with the SG and inform the
membership of their<br></div><div>> >> actions, and to build
consensus on positions when possible.
It's not that<br></div><div>> >> hard to write an
email to the list and attach a draft
of your proposed<br></div><div>> >> comments.<br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >><br></div><div>> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller<br></div><div>> >> Professor, School of
Public Policy<br></div><div>> >> Georgia Institute of
Technology<br></div><div>> >> Internet Governance
Project<br></div><div>> >> <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org/</a><br></div><div>> ><br></div><div>> ><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div>-- <br></div><div class="m_3774417797213394390gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><br></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span class="font" style="font-family:Calibri"></span> <br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div>