Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

[farzaneh badii]

Thank you Ayden.

In which holy water can we wash off this former chair sins :) But I will
forgo arguing with you over the accusation of membership was not consulted
about intersessional by past leadership. I  discussed it on this mailing
list with you multiple times. And it was not even our decision that wrapped
up the discussion, in the end, IPC, BC and ISPCP said they want it to be
held every other year. And no James, staff has not decided to just drop it.
Drop them a line see what they say. when former leaders said every other
year not to drop it. which means it should be held in 2020. So you can ask
about it and talk to your CSG counterparts.



I disagree with you on CROP, I think arguing over staff and FTEs etc is a
waste of time,  I abstain from discussing interpretation. There are GDPR
related items in this document
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-portfolio-project-fy20-17dec18-en.pdf
under 5.2.4  we should be careful and analyze more.

I also want to flag a couple of issue: am I right that no budget is
allocated for registrants program in FY20? If so why? And of course WHOIS
accuracy is at the top of ICANN agenda. Also I don't understand why they
have privacy proxy issues factored in.


Farzaneh


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:46 PM James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On 28 Dec 2018, at 14:48, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I hope you have had a pleasant festive season.
>
> As you may be aware, on 17 December 2018 ICANN Org published its proposed
> budget for the 2020 fiscal year. The associated documents can be found
> here. <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy20-budget-2018-12-17-en>
>
> I have now reviewed the budget documents and there are several areas of
> concern which I would like to bring to your attention.
>
> I hope this email might spark a conversation on the budget, and that this
> thread may inform our statement that we prepare on the budget next month,
> along with the positions that I (and other NCSG members) take forward to
> the GNSO’s Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) in the coming
> weeks. The SCBO’s next meeting is on 7 January, so please can you try to
> comment on the below email prior to this meeting so that the positions
> advanced on this call are consistent with your views.
>
> *In short, in my view the FY20 budget is not as problematic as the
> proposed FY19 one was, but it will still disproportionately hurt civil
> society.*
>
> *Personnel costs remain disproportionately high*
>
> Headcount is projected to grow to 405 staff by June 2020, up from 392 FTEs
> in September 2018. Personnel costs are projected to grow by $4.3 million in
> FY20 (to $76.3 million, or 56% of the overall budget, up from $72.0
> million, or 53% of the budget, in FY19). Aside from this increase being
> unsustainable given the flattening revenue, in my view this shows
> disrespect to the community. In comments on the FY19 budget, *every
> single constituency and stakeholder group* stated that personnel costs
> presented too high a burden on the budget. I am disappointed that ICANN Org
> has disregarded this feedback and will seek to continue to hire new staff
> and to increase salaries, which are already disproportionately high.
>
> While I understand the cost of living in Los Angeles (where most ICANN
> staff are based) is high, there is no need for ICANN to hire so many staff
> in L.A. — there are other cities in California, the U.S., and abroad where
> the cost of living is not so high and office space does not attract such a
> premium. Similarly, I find the argument that ICANN must pay private sector
> wages in order to attract talent disingenuous, as these are not ICANN’s
> peers. I believe ICANN should compare wages against those paid to public
> servants working for regulatory authorities. Finally, with the hiring of
> yet more Vice Presidents in FY19, ICANN appears to me to be too top-heavy,
> with more in managerial roles than comparable organizations have.
>
>
>
> I think that the argument of comparing against public sector wages does
> not hold water. ICANN is largely supposed to be comprised of technical and
> policy experts in a very niche area, and the comparators are the private
> sector actors. If we want an understudied and weak ICANN then yes we can go
> down that route, but with it comes inherent risk. Also setting up office
> space is high CapEx spend that we have for many years encourages ICANN to
> avoid, and to reduce its location to a core set to reduce its spend. I will
> agree on the top heavy nature of the ICANN structure.
>
>
> *Portuguese translation and interpretation may be disappearing*
>
> If, per page 10 of the Five-Year Operating Plan, ICANN has committed to
> translating materials into the six UN languages in FY20, does this mean it
> does not plan to translate material into Portuguese in FY20, as is it not a
> UN language? Note that in FY19 and earlier years ICANN has committed to
> translating documents into seven languages, so it seems implied that
> Portuguese interpretation and translation will not be offered in FY20.
> While I do question the value of some language services, particularly live
> interpretation at ICANN meetings, I find it problematic to eliminate
> translation services without first consulting with the community. It
> remains unclear to me what cost savings will be achieved by withdrawing
> Portuguese translation and interpretation services.
>
>
> I still believe that based on the ICANN meeting reports that language
> services are largely unused by the community and represent a huge overhead
> that we maintain purely to make ourselves look inclusive rather than
> providing a set of services that are actually used by the community. I
> haven’t looked at recent figures, but back during ICANN Dublin I believe
> that the majority of the interpretation channels were used by less than 10
> people at huge expense to the org, we need to really look at wether
> language services are actually delivering any ROI or are we merely spending
> to look good in this area.
>
>
> *No resources allocated for a NCPH Intersessional in FY20*
>
> As you may be aware, traditionally one of the most important meetings on
> our calendar every year was the Non-Contracted Parties House
> Intersessional. This was an opportunity for us to come together as the NCSG
> with our colleagues from the BC, IPC, and the ISPCP to better understand
> one another, and it inspired year-long collaboration that we have not been
> able to replicate in other fora. It was highly successful in 2017, with the
> meeting in Reykjavik attracting a near-perfect satisfaction rate among
> delegates. In 2018 the meeting was held alongside an ICANN Board meeting in
> Los Angeles, allowing us to have lunch with board members and to interact
> with some of the many ICANN staff who are based there. The meeting
> culminated in a 15-page outcome document
> <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2018+-+Final+Report?preview=/86606526/86606525/FY18%20NCPH%20Intersessional%20Report_final.pdf>.
> Sure, there was always room for improvement and support for the
> Intersessional amongst NCSG members was never unanimous, but by and large I
> found it to be a highly successful event and one which helped us achieve
> our policy objectives.
>
> Most upsettingly this important meeting is not being held in FY19. This is
> in spite of the fact that we had a budget allocated for it. Earlier in the
> year, ICANN staff reached out to the-then NCSG Chair and other NCSG leaders
> to confirm dates so that Constituency Travel could begin making travel
> arrangements. Unfortunately these outgoing leaders rejected the funds
> without 1) consulting with NCSG members, or 2) consulting the newly elected
> NCSG Chair. This decision has harmed as permanently, because in rejecting
> what had been a core part of the budget, it has now disappeared from
> subsequent budgets. *There is no funding at all for an Intersessional in
> the proposed FY20 Budget.*
>
> When funding for an Intersessional was declined in FY19, it was done so
> with the understanding that it would be held one year later. This was what
> we were told on our mailing list by the outgoing NCSG Chair. We will need
> to investigate whether this is an oversight in the budget or a commitment
> that is not being honoured by ICANN staff.
>
> *Remember that this meeting levelled the playing field. Our friends in the
> IPC and BC can easily afford to lobby ICANN staff and board members
> face-to-face; we can’t, and this was our one opportunity every year to do
> so. *
>
>
> Yup but we suffered from so much infighting on this topic its wholly
> unsurprising that ICANN staff elected to drop this.
>
>
> *ICANN office in Los Angeles costing $4.7 million in FY20*
>
> In the FY20 budget the Los Angeles office has been budgeted $4.7 million
> for upkeep and "operations costs"; an increase of $200,000 over FY19. I
> suggest we enquire further as to what this figure entails. (This is in
> addition to the resources allocated to the Brussels, Geneva, Montevideo,
> Singapore, Beijing, Seoul, and Delhi offices, though their projected
> expenses seem reasonable.)
>
>
> This is not an usual figure for an office for 100 FTEs in LA just as a
> reference point.
>
>
> *Are expenses being allocated to the community travel budget that
> shouldn’t be?*
>
> Intuitively this line item suggests it would include airfares, hotel
> expenses, and per diems incurred by community members traveling to public
> ICANN meetings. However I am concerned that this might not be the case, and
> that it may actually include some expenditure that is not strictly
> community travel-related, such as staff salaries and staff travel.
>
> For instance, take a look at a different line item, '175423 Travel
> Services’, which is described as, "Manage day to day work and activities
> related to travel, and maintain travel vendor relationships and support
> miscellaneous meetings.” This seems reasonable. But look at the spend: 0.5
> FTE and $89,000 for salaries. $0 for travel. This surely cannot cover,
> then, the salaries of ICANN’s Constituency Travel team (Joseph and Nicole),
> as they are 2.0 FTE and we know they travel to ICANN meetings. So where,
> then, is their salary being drawn from, along with their associated travel
> expenditure? Could it be coming from the community travel budget? I suggest
> we seek clarification from the Finance team.
>
>
> Agree.
>
>
> *GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session absent from the budget*
>
> This year the GNSO Council held, for the first time, a Strategic Planning
> Session in Los Angeles. This served as an induction to the GNSO Council for
> new Councillors, and was a refresher course for returning Councillors. Last
> year the session had a 100% satisfaction rate amongst participants, and I
> can personally attest to its value in allowing the NCSG members of the GNSO
> Council to have the opportunity to meet with our colleagues from the CSG
> and the CPH outside of the constraints of an ordinary ICANN meeting. Every
> day we strategized together, learned new skills, and left better
> understanding our responsibilities as Councillors. This is not yet a
> permanent part of the budget, but I do anticipate that the Council will ask
> for another retreat in FY20. In our comments I hope we support this session
> continuing in FY20, as the cost implications are minimal given its returns.
>
>
> Agree.
>
>
> *We need to revert CROP back to how it was in FY18 and in prior years.*
>
> We have experimented with changes to CROP in FY19 and tried in good faith
> to make them work. It’s time to acknowledge CROP has been broken by ICANN
> staff and we need to revert back to how it was in FY18 and prior years,
> when it worked well, and before it was changed unilaterally and without
> community consultation. Thus far in FY19 we are six months into the
> financial year and have awarded zero CROP slots. It is nearly impossible to
> give them away under the new regime, as one must first be used by someone
> at an ICANN meeting (despite the program historically being intended to
> support regional outreach to those unable to travel to face-to-face ICANN
> meetings…), whereas in FY18 it was possible to allocate slots to community
> members on the basis of a good strategy for boosting participation in DNS
> policy work.
>
> *Time to rightsize the ICANN Fellowship Program.*
>
> I suggest we advocate for rightsizing the ICANN Fellowship Program so that
> it is large enough to support those who are genuinely interested in DNS
> policy, but whom are not already engaged in it. Such a change would make
> the program more manageable for community volunteers to mentor fellows and
> would be consistent with the five-year financial management strategy that
> seeks a more balanced budget.
>
>
> 100% agree, fellowship is again just there largely to make us look good
> rather than actually building any capacity for the community in my opinion.
>
>
> *What exactly is ICANN sponsoring?*
>
> Page 14 of the Draft Operating Plan states that sponsorships and
> contributions “are being centrally managed based on team priorities.” What
> are these priorities, and which events have been tentatively flagged for
> sponsorship? I would like to ask if we can get a list of events sponsored
> in FY19, along with those proposed for FY20, so we can assess whether there
> are any missing gaps or unusual selections.
>
>
> This is managed by GSE, whom are very open to community input on this
> topic (I have worked with them previously)
>
>
> *$1.2 million for SalesForce*
>
> Why does ICANN use SalesForce and why are cheaper CRMs not suitable?
>
>
> Its used mainly for the new GTLD program and is not just used for CRM.
>
>
> *Increased spend on the Information Transparency Initiative*
>
> $3.0 million has been allocated to this activity in FY20, despite it
> having no outputs in FY19 and FY18. While in principle I am supportive of
> efforts to improve content findability, I would like to see some prototypes
> of what the Initiative is working towards delivering so I can better
> understand its value and so we can assess whether it is on-track.
>
>
> This is an insane cost for a CMS/DMS and staff.
>
>
> *Not much being spent on GSE Capacity Development Programs.*
>
> Line item 188502 covers policy training, and so seems to me an appropriate
> use of resources. However the budget allocation seems very small relative
> to other projects, particularly those supporting the At-Large Advisory
> Committee. I would like to better understand what policy training is being
> proposed, who would benefit from it, and whether or not a larger budget
> allocation would be useful.
>
> *Is the spend on ALAC Working Groups justified?*
>
> Page 19 of the Draft Operating Plan states that ICANN Org will support “20
> At-Large working groups focusing on policy, process, technical, outreach,
> and engagement.” This seems excessive to me, given the overall small number
> of participants on each call (some have less than 5 community members
> dialling in, but as many as 12 staff members joining the call, including
> interpreters).
>
>
> No its a waste for an advisory committee whose role is no policy
> development.
>
>
> *How much is spent on the GNSO relative to other SO/ACs?*
>
> We asked this question last year and ICANN Org was not receptive to the
> idea of providing a breakdown of its spend on the GNSO relative to those of
> other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Sadly, this level
> of granularity is not provided in the FY20 budget either, but one can
> clearly see the ALAC is doing quite well compared to the GNSO, as it even
> has budget to fly 300 people, almost all of whom are disengaged if not
> disinterested in DNS policy, to Montreal for a week, for the “At-Large
> Summit.”
>
> *Are resources allocated to policy development sufficient?*
>
> It is always hard to assess whether the resources being allocated to the
> GNSO’s policy development activities are sufficient, because we are not
> provided information as to how much it costs to deliver services. How much
> does a transcript cost? A call dial out? The rental of an Adobe Connect
> room? We have no real insights there, and while the CEO has said repeatedly
> this year he would provide the GNSO with this information, it has yet to
> materialize. What we can do, however, is, compare and contrast the
> resources that were allocated in FY19 to the GNSO’s EPDP (a top priority
> activity) with that of the RDS2 Review Team (extremely low priority,
> engaging in largely irrelevant tasks). The RDS2 RT had eight or more staff
> to the EPDP’s five, and four face-to-faces compared with the EPDP having
> two. This disparity is curious.
>
> *No resources being allocated to GDPR compliance activities in FY20.*
>
> Page 13 of the Operating Plan states, “the ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan
> and Budget has not allocated any specific resources for data privacy
> activities.” This seems unwise to me, given ICANN Org has internal and
> external obligations to meet, and there are likely to be outcomes emerging
> from the EPDP Team’s Final Report that will require implementation work on
> the part of ICANN Org. ICANN Org must know this, given it is engaging in
> parallel processes that seek to undermine the work of the EPDP Team.
> Surely, then, there should be some resources allocated to GDPR compliance
> activities.
>
>
> There are other line items under legal for GDPR.
>
>
> *Again, these are preliminary thoughts from my first glance at the
> proposed FY20 Budget. I welcome your questions and comments! Thanks.*
>
> Best wishes,
> Ayden Férdeline
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181228/898b077b/attachment.htm>