Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

Wed Feb 6 09:44:45 EET 2019

Hello All, Hey Raoul,

The reason why NCUC is only using its first slot now is due to the fact
that, previous to the Barcelona meeting, Renata was trying to allocate the
CROP slot to a member who applied for the funding but with an onsite
engagement plan that was directed at NPOC - maybe forgetting that all crop
applicants have to present a plan for GSE approval and their actions have
to be related to the constituency whose slot they are intending to use.
Therefore, at the time, the EC decided to cancel this allocation and this
fact also lead to the previous chair resignation, as you all might recall.

Thanks for pointing out that we are only now using our first crop slot.
Given the new rule of only using the first slot with an icann meeting, we
did not have much to do with regards to this. Having said that, I agree
with Ayden's comments about the CROP allocation, previously we had more
slots and one of them was not restricted by the regional rule  - I can only
use a crop if its for an event in the LAC region, for example -, that used
to give us more room for outreaching and attending key events in the year.
Also important to remember that the CROP allocation has a limit of 4 days,
so the NCUC supported traveller for Kobe wont be able to attend the entire
community forum due to the restrictions as well. Maybe we can discuss
collectively possible models of CROP allocations as a stakholder group in
light of the strict rules.

Best,
Bruna

Em qua, 6 de fev de 2019 às 12:03, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> Well well
>
> We seem to have some real disparities but anyway. I would still like us to
> bear in mind that one way or the other it is not only about travel slots.
> But I do agree with the definition of volunteering without being paid need
> some way of incentivising it. Although the budget is kind of locked we
> still need to navigate within safe waters as money keep lashing out by
> other means from ICANN but I would tend to support the concept and idea.
> Perhaps we can come up with better evaluation ways !
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
> linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>
> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2019, at 17:44, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> First, thanks for all the work you put into going through the budget
> Ayden, and raising relevant issues with your own analysis.
>
> I'm not sure if I'm a non-native English speaker, since I was born in
> Scotland but moved to Finland when I was one year old. I would definitely
> say that Finnish is my first language and I would also like to support
> wiping out translations into UN languages. I also agree with James, that
> judging by the ROI (I've not seen recent figures either, but I would think
> this hasn't changed), we really are spending a massive amount of money into
> just appearing inclusive. Mathematics and physics are also made in English
> by default and I've not heard that scientists all over the world are up in
> arms about it.
>
> I would agree AND disagree about the CROP though. NPOC has already been
> able to use two of the slots (including one in Kobe) and I DID find it a
> bit weird, why NCUC didn't use their slot already in Barcelona. As I
> understand, NCUC is now using their first CROP slot in Kobe. That would
> still leave NCUC to use their remaining slots for RightsCon, EuroDIG and
> ICANN65, just to list some off the top of my head, I'm sure there are
> others too. I would agree, that CROP was really supposed to support
> outreach to these events outside the ICANN meetings and I do see mandatory
> use of the first slot to an ICANN meeting worse, than unnecessary.
>
> My third issue would be to make a statement about the obvious disparity
> between commercial and non-commercial actors in ICANN. We should really be
> favored to even have an illusion of a balanced community. Apart from some
> feelings of saving the world, all we can offer our arduous volunteers, is
> experience working in an international community and travel slots. Since we
> can't really ask ICANN to pay any of us, we should at least have more
> travel slots, than what the commercial actors fleece off ICANN. If we can't
> get that, we could ask ICANN to cease their constituency support to the
> commercial actors. They can afford it.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 14:18, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Akriti,
>>
>> Good question! I think implementation planning for Work Stream 2 is still
>> under way, so I am not sure that I would expect to see funding for
>> implementation in this budget. However some of these activities could be
>> included within the rather large contingency figure (that ICANN does not
>> break out). There are another two comments currently open for input; one on
>> the Strategic Plan and priorities for 2021-2025, and the other on the
>> two-year budgetary process. Perhaps one of these would be a suitable
>> vehicle for commenting on WS 2 implementation?
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 7:56 AM, Akriti Bopanna <
>> 00000762964d28d5-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>> 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> 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>
>>> 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
>>>> 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> 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> 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>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190206/a9452c97/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/20190206/a9452c97/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/20190206/a9452c97/attachment.gif>
-------------- 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/20190206/a9452c97/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- 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/20190206/a9452c97/attachment-0001.jpeg>