Budget Discussions at ICANN61 - blog post from ICANN CEO

[hfaiedh ines]

Thank you Rafik. It is interesting to see some flexibility towards bylaw
changes and the possibility of another public comment period.

2018-03-20 23:50 GMT+01:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> 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 Res
> iliency 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/20180321/c1eea34b/attachment.htm>