comments on the ICANN budget

Tue May 2 16:17:13 EEST 2017

Hi all,

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.

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.

Best,
-Michael

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Tapani and all,
>
> I wanted to give a suggestion based your following paragraph regarding
> lack of resource.
> "*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.*
> "
>
>
> Given the fact that "*NCUC's membership has reached 570 members,
> including 119 noncommercial organizations and 451 individuals. *"
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Nadira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:29 PM, 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/piperma
>> il/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/
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170502/06b42120/attachment.htm>