Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

[Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix]

Hi all,

Thank you Ayden.

I think more flexibility around translation and interpretation is a better
path forward. UN languages are the outcome of a 1940's political choice.
While there are somewhat representative at the most macro level, I don't
see why they should determine any statutorily availability of languages
services at ICANN.

Translation and interpretation achieve different objectives and do not have
the same cost structure... While I think the more translation the better
(for purposes of outreach and information), interpretation should be
provided more flexibly and where it would be really useful, e.g. in the
local language of where the ICANN meeting is taking place. Maybe that is
something that is already done?

As for the analysis of FTE's by Ayden, I think there might be accounting
quirks here and there that lead to some of those issues. I don't see any
harm in asking though. I'm not sure however we are necessarily in a
position to directly questions things such as choosing salesforce over
another CRM. At least I am not; and even if we have individuals among us
who are, I don't necessarily think we should focus on that.

Same with ALAC funding; on what basis is ICANN allocating funds anyway?
That a constituency mismanages its funds (as you seem to be alleging Ayden)
is unfortunate, but I don't think it is our place to point fingers in the
context of a public comment like this. If GNSO/NCSG does not receive its
fair share (or whatever it is entitled to), that is another deal.

I don't have a view over the specifics of how changes in numbers to either
CROP or other participation funding has impacted engagement, policy output,
etc, so I'll pass on that in the context of the budget comment.

A nice day or night to all,

Best,

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 1:06 PM James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> This seems like a much more intelligent approach to me, rather than
> pretending we are the UN with the full access to resources that comes with
> that! Strongly support putting this into a comment against the budget and
> also potentially into a letter to the language services team directly.
>
> On 28 Dec 2018, at 16:57, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> As an English speaker, I'm always a bit hesitant about jumping into this
> issue, as I know I have the privilege/advantage of having my native
> language as the default. It's quite possible that ICANN's main concern here
> is the optics, but that's not something to be entirely discounted either.
> As an organization that strives to be international and inclusive, I think
> they like having a UN-esque model of translation. Still - I wonder if there
> isn't a better way of doing things, like potentially arranging an opt-in
> system, where users could pre-request language services for a meeting, and
> they'd only be provided if a certain number of people registered for a
> given language. That could also help them be better targeted as well - and
> have interpreters in the sessions where they're most needed, as opposed to
> just in the main rooms by default. May be something that's worth raising.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181229/07b0d30c/attachment.htm>