Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20
Akriti Bopanna
akriti at CIS-INDIA.ORG
Tue Feb 5 07:56:26 EET 2019
Hi all,
It was pointed out to me that the budget hasn't accounted for WS2
implementation costs which seems unwise at this point given the
magnitude of resources needed to fully effectuate the recommendations.
Would love to get any thoughts on why this wasn't done so?
Thanks,
Akriti,
Center for Internet and Society
On 07/01/2019 10:12, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:
> Hi Ayden, all
>
> Thanks a lot for all this info. I suppose indeed that there is a form
> of discretion involved in Board decisions. I agree that a macro view
> is also relevant in the context of our comment.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 6:29 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Raphael,
>
> Once a year we have the opportunity to submit a Special Budget
> Request to ICANN Org to request funding or resources for an ad hoc
> project (after something has been funded for three consecutive
> years, it generally becomes a part of the core budget). In the
> past we have submitted requests for training, website hosting and
> server maintenance, travel to and registration for conferences
> like INTA, the IGF, and RightsCon, and other projects which have
> been granted. Some requests have been rejected as well. How ICANN
> Org determines which requests to recommend the Board approve or
> reject is something of a black box, at least to me. Other support
> we have, and which forms a part of the current, core budgetary
> process, is staff support. The NCSG has one FTE whereas the ALAC
> has a good many more -- at least eight. This is where we can also
> comment on the resourcing that we don't receive, and which other
> parts of the community do and which perhaps we would find useful,
> like interpretation/translation services or software licensing,
> i.e. for Slack.
>
> But, I would stress, we should not only be reviewing the budget
> for items which directly impact our Stakeholder Group or
> Constituencies. The budget is where resources are allocated to
> implement the policy/policies that the community has developed. So
> it is also important - if not more important - to monitor the
> budget to understand what resources are being allocated (or not
> being allocated) in furtherance of our policy objectives.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, January 4, 2019 10:14 PM, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
> <rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarification Ayden. Actually, when we discuss
>> funds, is there anything besides travel support and money for
>> administrative business like website and the like? And what are
>> the criteria under which ICANN "allocates" funds (if there is
>> such a thing)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com
>> <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I would tend to agree on this point with Ayden. The facts and
>> outputs talks for itself.
>>
>> Kris Seeburn
>> seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
>> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
>>
>> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>>
>>
>>> On 31 Dec 2018, at 16:24, Ayden Férdeline
>>> <icann at FERDELINE.COM <mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Raphael,
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that the ALAC
>>> mismanages its funds -- rather, I am suggesting that there
>>> is not fairness in how funds are being allocated, as the
>>> ALAC receives significantly more resources than the GNSO
>>> does. I do not begrudge the ALAC for procuring such
>>> substantial resources; I just think we need to be getting
>>> more assistance too, as any objective observer would note
>>> that the GNSO's outputs do exceed those of the ALAC.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 3:39 PM, Raphaël
>>> Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM
>>> <mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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/20190205/9ba92a2f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: linkedin3.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190205/9ba92a2f/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190205/9ba92a2f/attachment.gif>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list