Budget Discussions at ICANN61 - blog post from ICANN CEO

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

Please find the latest blog post fron ICANN CEO, I think that is of
interest as he is planning to suggest several changes for reviews, meetings
by Panama meeting in June.

Best Regards,

Rafik Dammak

NCSG Policy Committee chair


https://www.icann.org/news/blog/budget-discussions-at-icann61


   - ICANN Blog
   - Author: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN
   - 20 Mar 2018


During ICANN61, a major topic of conversation was the FY19 draft Budget and
Operating Plan. As you’ve heard from me, 80-85 percent of our budget is
already committed to certain projects that are in our Bylaws, our
contracts, our operations, and other fixed costs. This means that roughly
15-20 percent of the overall budget can be considered when we are looking
at ways to decrease our spending. We must work together to determine the
best allocation of the remaining funds, because this is your decision, not
mine.

One of the things I greatly appreciated about this meeting was the
willingness of our community to look at things differently, to try to think
outside the box, and to come up with unexpected ideas.

For example, in Puerto Rico, we talked with the SO/AC leaders who make up
the meeting planning group to explore the key drivers of cost and
high-level considerations on how we might be able to make ICANN meetings
more efficient and effective. Our next step is to supply a more detailed
paper outlining options and recommendations for the group to consider.

We also talked a lot about reviews during the meeting, which was a
particularly interesting discussion. In the next fiscal year, we have nine
reviews running in various stages including a new Accountability &
Transparency Review (ATRT3), a continuation of the Registration Directory
Services (RDS) Review, and, we expect, the Security, Stabilityand
Resiliency Review
2 (SSR2). Many people are not happy with the high number of reviews because
they do not have the time to participate, and raised concerns that for the
ATRT3, the Work Stream 2 Accountability recommendations are still being
finalized, and for the RDS Review, there is still significant work
remaining to address the impacts of the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) on the WHOIS system. Delaying either of these reviews would save
many hours of volunteer time. Additionally, and more broadly, addressing
the timing of reviews, and approach, will contribute to discussing how to
make future reviews more efficient and more relevant. Deferring a review
that will be impacted by current Policy Development Processes or other
outside factors, could have significant savings on productivity and cost.
For example, deferring the ATRT3 Review alone would save $700,000 USD, thus
impacting next year’s budget.

There were also discussions on staggering or phasing implementation of
reviews, changing how certain reviews are conducted (limiting travel,
number of review team members, clarity on scope or prioritization of
recommendations, etc.), or considering the timing of reviews differently,
for example timing the start of the next review based on when the
implementation of prior review recommendations is complete. Some of these
proposals could require Bylaw changes. These ideas are not about getting
around the responsibilities detailed in the Bylaws. I can speak for the
org, but I am sure the community and Board would agree, we are committed
and accountable to conducting the reviews detailed in the Bylaws, and will
work with the community to make any necessary adjustments based on
community input and agreement.

I’ve heard many times now, from various members of the community, about the
need to and benefit of coordinating the work plans of the Supporting
Organizations, Advisory Committees, Board, and org. The aim would be to
reduce the number of parallel tracks being worked on, leading to reduced
workloads and increased efficiency in developing policies or community
recommendations. This coordination could be organized by developing
mechanisms to plan together during the development of the next strategic
plan.

The ideas stemming from these initial conversations, are just that –
initial. It’s important to note that some of the ideas here are
inconsistent with the Bylaws, so, if agreed, implementing these ideas may
require Bylaw changes.

I am beginning to look at what changes might be made to the cycle of
reviews embedded in our Bylaws. I am working with my team to determine the
best next steps on this, including holding another public comment period
about any changes that might have an effect on either Bylaws or policies. I
look forward to your comments on the proposal. Ultimately, it is your
decision if you would like to accept any change of the Bylaws. I look
forward to working together.

It was good to see so many of you in Puerto Rico and I hope that you had
safe travels home. Now, it’s back to work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180320/9573476b/attachment.htm>