Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20
Collin Kurre
collin at ARTICLE19.ORG
Wed Feb 6 11:12:55 EET 2019
Hi Ayden,
Thanks for this. Indeed, the Strategic Plan and two-year budgetary
process comments seem well suited for emphasizing the need to dedicate
resources to WS2 implementation. I don't see any harm in mentioning it
in the annual budget comment as well to keep it on the radar, though. It
seems telling that the board itself raised it as an issue during their
meeting!
Greetings from London,
Collin
On 06/02/2019 12:17, Ayden Férdeline 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
> <mailto: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
>>> <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/20190206/d25eeae5/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/d25eeae5/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/d25eeae5/attachment.gif>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list