<div>Thanks, Sam, I found this very useful.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I don't believe that community travel is a large expense for ICANN; relative to staff travel, it is nothing. ICANN flew 220+ staff to Abu Dhabi, and gave the NCSG and NCUC three travel slots each. Yes, others have alternative funding, be that through the Council, Review Teams, Onboarding, or Fellowships, but this support is not extensive. <br></div><div><br></div><div>The real cost base at ICANN is not us - it's personnel costs, consultants, external counsel, and other "professional services", leasing office space, and staff travel to an array of irrelevant events. So when we fight for our five CROP slots to be retained, I hope we can make it clear that we understand the need for fiscal prudence and believe ICANN should only be funding activities related to its core mission. CROP is; those expensive Boston Consulting Group papers (which a former Board member described on Facebook as being "recycled" over and over again, so why does ICANN keep buying them?) and other spend are not...<br></div><div><br></div><div>That said, I think you're right that cuts are going to continue coming our way, so the time is now for us to start 'boosting our defences' and get out there fundraising, boosting our own Reserve Fund, and perhaps becoming enough of a legal entity to be able to do all that...<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also - your note about the org's dissatisfaction with the PDP model reminds me that we (NCSG) haven't sent any feedback in on the staff whitepaper on this topic (the one drafted by Emily and Marika that could spell an end to bottom-up, end-user participation at ICANN). We should probably add that to the long list of statements we need to draft urgently...</div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><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 16 February 2018 1:37 AM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran@yorku.ca> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><p>Ayden, et. al.,<br></p><p>The gist of my comments on Skype (reproduced below) are that
ICANN is probably at an inflection point on its revenue growth
curve, and the budgets will get tighter going forward. There are
diminishing returns from new gTLDs, when they come, there are
social media options to registering domain names, both for persons
and entities, and there are likely to be new technologies for
Registrars to do their work. The prospects for a Distributed
Ledger Technology (think blockchain 3.0 or Tangle 4.0 - i.e., down
the road) will likely reduce the earned fees from existing domain
name registrations. READ: ICANN's budget will shrink, hence my
analogy of ICANN going from a Plum to a Prune. <br></p><p>This means that NCSG (& NCUC/NPOC) have to seriously look
inward and assess the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the
ICANN expenditures they account for. Xavier and crew have gone a
considerable distance in giving us the granularity of budget
expenses we asked for, to aid us in decision making. While we can
mount arguments for why CROPP needs to be retained, we are
implicitly (with silence) saying that everything else needs to be
retained (mainly with regard to travel and accommodations - the
big budget items). <br></p><p>It is my assessment that a "no shrinkage" strategy with regard to
the NCSG entitlement is a "no go", and that budget cuts will come
with or without consultation. This may take a couple of years to
roll out, but the NCSG & Co future will be will less ICANN
funding. We can either think through how we adjust to that, we can
start to look for other funding, or we can do both. What we cannot
do, for much longer, is just insist on the status quo based simply
on the notion that we we do is a good idea and in the Public
Interest.<br></p><p>At the same time, we are hearing more and more about how ICANN
the org, and ICANN the board are not happy with the dynamics and
the progress of the ICANN pdp-wg model. We should anticipate, and
help shape, changes there. Those of you meeting in Puerto Rico
should be spending considerable time on how NCSG deals with these
issues (or show that I have it wrong) and spend less time in a
dance that makes it look like we are trying to hold the Board and
ICANN org more accountable. <br></p><p>Sam L<br></p><p><span class="size" style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span class="colour" style="color:#330099"><i>[<b>Skype posting</b>] By the
last time I was able to attend an ICANN meeting (ICANN58:
Copenhagen) Xavier had discussed greater budget granularity
with NCSG and pledged to improve access and transparency. We
may quibble on how much we now have, and how far ICANN has
gone in improved granularity, but it is important to recognize
that Xavier has gone a great distance in honoring that pledge. </i><i><br> </i><i><br> </i><i>That budget lines are under threat should come as no
surprise as ICANN faces tighter revenues, and as ICANN goes
forward both with a bit of belt tightening, and (not
surprisingly) some reflection and reviews around how it
carries out its work. </i><i><br> </i><i><br> </i><i>I, as an outsider with no inside information, suspect
that ICANN will have to undergo a bit of organizational
restructuring in the service of its remit and do so within
tightening budget constraints. While NCSG, and NCUC &
NPOC, concern themselves with the short run future of CROPP,
we should be thinking about structural changes that may even
impact on our respective charters. At least that is my read
from the outer seats in the stadium. </i></span></span></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/15/2018 7:03 PM, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to
hear what suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is
something we really need to tackle. And it's something I hope we
might be able to table for discussion in San Juan as well. We
need to talk about the expected standard of behaviour for our
officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN is moving
in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was
broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment,
and called for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated
ourselves sufficiently from these cuts... We are very, very
vulnerable at the moment and if we are not prudent with our
allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices] could
pay a heavy price.<b><i> I think Sam made a very insightful
comment on this topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him
into this discussion in case he'd like to paste his message
here for other list subscribers to see, and/or expand upon
his prediction.</i></b>.. I'd certainly like to hear more
about the 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the
coming 12 months...<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><pre cols="72" class="moz-signature">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
------------------------------------------------
Visiting Prof, Xi'an Jaiotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a href="https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852<br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div>