Budget Discussions at ICANN61 - blog post from ICANN CEO

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

I won't speculate about what kind of changes will be proposed and we should
wait to see the exact suggestions in the expected paper.

Best,

Rafik

2018-03-22 7:01 GMT+09:00 hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>:

> 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/20180321/54e2c631/attachment.htm>