comments on the ICANN budget

Tue May 2 12:51:02 EEST 2017

Yes, yes. Thank you Milton. Transparency is necessary for democracy.
DeeDee

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Tapani
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it takes just as much effort to send an email
> to the NCSG discuss list as it does to send it to the PC list. Why exclude
> people from information and discussion? This is not as I said in my earlier
> email, just a problem with Ed. The whole mentality here has to change.
> Involve the members! Inform the members!
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> > On May 2, 2017, at 12:29, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Policy Committee is in charge of endorsing comments on behalf of NCSG,
> > so decisions about that have to take place in PC list and the way for
> > people to get their comments endorsed as NCSG comments is to ask for
> > support from the PC.
> >
> > Of course discussion could and in general should occur on this list,
> > too, but when time is short, as it regrettably often is, people tend
> > to do only what *must* be done. It would have been nice for for some
> > PC member to relay discussion about this to the general list (and as a
> > member of PC I'm guilty here as well), but sometimes we aren't able to
> > do things in an optimal way.
> >
> > You can read the entire thread about Ed's comment in the PC list
> > following the link he posted below. Ed made a comment and notified the
> > PC, there was talk about endorsing it as NCSG comment but for whatever
> > reason that never got anywhere - probably people were simply too busy.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to accuse or blame anyone here, the fault lies
> > simply in our lack of resources, too much work for too few people.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +0200, Michael Oghia (
> mike.oghia at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you Ed for the clarification. Does anyone know why this wasn't
> >> discussed more on this list?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> -Michael
> >>
> >>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Milton,
> >>>
> >>> As too often is the case, you rush to personal attack without first
> >>> determining the facts.
> >>>
> >>> From the NCSG PC list (https://lists.ncsg.is/
> pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/
> >>> 000515.html )
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rafik,
> >>>
> >>> I’d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget
> >>> comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the
> >>> document. I do not endorse it.
> >>>
> >>> There was no way for me to edit the document without completely
> deleting
> >>> much of what had previously been written there. I just didn’t feel
> that was
> >>> an appropriate thing to do.
> >>>
> >>> Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal
> >>> Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have
> >>> stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow
> >>> from my post, or disregard it completely.
> >>>
> >>> My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following
> >>> objections:
> >>>
> >>> 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize
> the
> >>> hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of
> the
> >>> Empowered Community.
> >>>
> >>> I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my
> >>> Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and
> community
> >>> input. However, I don’t believe any slights were deliberate or
> intentional.
> >>> I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many
> hard
> >>> deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws.
> This
> >>> is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without
> specific
> >>> proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the
> proposed
> >>> NCSG comment consists of.
> >>>
> >>> 2.  I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand
> alone
> >>> attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many
> of
> >>> us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of
> >>> criticism of other questionable expenses?
> >>>
> >>> 3. I don’t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal
> >>> matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG
> asked
> >>> for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually granted one.
> >>> Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff
> >>> retreats are so onerous?
> >>>
> >>> 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the
> lack
> >>> of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one
> >>> unfunded proposal – that of $100,000 for external PDP support – and
> would
> >>> encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view.
> >>>
> >>> Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work
> done
> >>> on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my
> comments
> >>> above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by
> the PC.
> >>>
> >>> Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this
> >>> evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here.
> Consider
> >>> my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or
> >>> ignore, my offerings on this matter.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Ed Morris
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> ______________
> >>>
> >>> Public comments are the purview of the NCSG Policy Committee, not the
> NCSG
> >>> Finance Committee. With rare exceptions, discussions of the content of
> the
> >>> public comments occur within the PC and not on the DISCUSS list. Maybe
> that
> >>> is something we should re-think, however that problem is not unique to
> this
> >>> comment. If you’d like to know why the NCSG did not submit a public
> comment
> >>> on the budget I’d suggest you read the NCSG PC archives, ask the NCSG
> PC
> >>> Chair or ask those who volunteered to write the comment at the last
> NCSG PC
> >>> meeting.
> >>>
> >>> Contrary to your assertion, Milton, as above, I did share my comments
> with
> >>> those who stepped forward to draft the comment for the Policy
> Committee. I
> >>> should note that I was not one of those who volunteered to draft this
> >>> comment for the PC. As a member of the P.C., though, I saw things I
> >>> disagreed with in what was being done and shared my views. We were all
> on
> >>> deadline, though, which made things difficult.  In fact, one P.C.
> observer
> >>> suggested the NCSG might want to endorse my comment (although
> qualifying
> >>> her comment by stating she had yet to read my comment and may not even
> >>> agree with her suggestion) (https://lists.ncsg.is/
> >>> pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-April/000518.html ).
> >>>
> >>> Not much else I can say Milton. You seem to delight in attacking me
> >>> personally, facts notwithstanding. I hope you had fun. You can
> criticize me
> >>> for being late to the conversation, but this is a volunteer position
> and I
> >>> was busy elsewhere early in the comment period. I guess that doesn’t
> fit
> >>> your narrative, a narrative which has little to do with fact.
> >>>
> >>> Ed Morris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I was interested in the public comments on ICANN's budget - I believe
> >>>> this is the first one since the transition.
> >>>>
> >>>> I noticed that all stakeholder groups and constituencies except NCSG
> >>>> filed comments on the budget. I was disappointed to see that instead
> of a
> >>>> NCSG comment we have a lone individual, Ed Morris, commenting with his
> >>>> personal opinions. Since Ed is supposed to be the chair of our NCSG
> finance
> >>>> committee, one would have thought that he would post his comments to
> the
> >>>> NCSG list for some feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed's comments (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail
> >>>> /comments-fy18-budget-08mar17/attachments/20170428/440be454/
> >>>> budgetcomment-0001.pdf) make it clear that they are his personal
> >>>> opinions and not necessarily those of the NCSG, but I find this very
> odd.
> >>>> Normally, if you file comments individually, it is because you tried
> to
> >>>> achieve NCSG consensus but could not. In that case, it's OK for folks
> to
> >>>> file comments to reflect the different views.
> >>>>
> >>>> In this case, Ed made no effort to inform the group of his views on
> the
> >>>> budget, much less attempt to gain some support for them. I think this
> is
> >>>> not acceptable. The Chair of our Finance Committee needs to think of
> >>>> himself as a delegate of the SG, not as someone who goes off into a
> silo
> >>>> and does whatever he wants, without even informing the members who
> >>>> appointed him.
> >>>>
> >>>> This becomes more serious when one realizes that in his comments, Ed
> >>>> basically threatens ICANN with rejecting the entire budget because of
> a
> >>>> disagreement over a small item. He says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Unless bound by my Support Group to support this budget, I would be
> >>>> inclined to favor rejecting the entire budget when it comes back to
> the
> >>>> GNSO Council if this amount is not restored to the budget prior its
> final
> >>>> adoption."
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure what Ed means by his "support group" but presumably that
> >>>> means his Stakeholder Group and/or Constituency. But how are we
> supposed to
> >>>> "bind" him to favor or oppose the budget if we don't even know that
> he has
> >>>> made this threat?
> >>>>
> >>>> In sum, I am sure we all appreciate the willingness of volunteers to
> go
> >>>> through the budget and make sense of it, but our delegates to these
> >>>> committees have to understand that they are agents of NCSG and it is
> their
> >>>> responsibility to liaise with the SG and inform the membership of
> their
> >>>> actions, and to build consensus on positions when possible. It's not
> that
> >>>> hard to write an email to the list and attach a draft of your proposed
> >>>> comments.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> >>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
> >>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
> >>>> Internet Governance Project
> >>>> http://internetgovernance.org/
> >>>
> >>>
>

-- 
http://independent-magazine.org/2016/11/independent-media-and-trump/
<http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170502/c6021f7b/attachment.htm>