comments on the ICANN budget

Tue May 2 16:40:10 EEST 2017

Hi,

I think some stuff needs to be clarified:
- we discussed at membership level the idea of submitting a comment to the
ICANN budget for FY18 in the NCSG Policy call held the 18th April where we
did planning public comments ( recordings herehttps://listserv.syr.edu/s
cripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1704&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=80927)
- a group of people volunteered to work on the budget comment and the list
of all ongoing public comments was shared in the list, for this case
Martin, Stephanie, Sam, Ayden https://listserv.syr.
edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1704&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=87119
- Ayden shared the draft in NCSG list and had few comments there from some
members (https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1704&L=NCSG-
DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=89307)
- the Policy committee list only reviewed the comments but we didn't reach
consensus about sending a statement.
- With regard to Ed comment, it was shared few hours before the deadline
for submission when we are discussing the current draft for endorsement and
review. I cannot talk about other PC members positions with regard to the
statement

so
- Yes the draft was shared in the NCSG wider list for getting comments
(Michael, for example, did several edits for proofreading)
- Yes, the task for drafting was delegated to members and not led by Policy
committee (you can see in this thread https://listserv.syr.
edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1704&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=87119 members
volunteering for the draft).

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-03 6:17 GMT+09:00 Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:

> 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/20170502/0deda54c/attachment.htm>