Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

Wed Feb 6 13:06:17 EET 2019

Hello all and Raoul,

Lets see if I can clear up my previous email:

No, I am not confusing the allocation of the PIR funding. In fact, Dina
receiving the PIR funding was the solution to the problem I mentioned
before. What happened was: during the NCUC deliberations for which NCSG
members would have the PIR funding the previous NCUC Chair decided to
assign an NPOC member the NCUC Crop slot to attend Barcelona. But
considering that the call was opened exclusively for the PIR funding, NCUC
EC considered that assigning the CROP slot to someone who had not presented
an outreach plan regarding the constituency + having the constituency not
opened a CROP call before it would not be ideal. At the time, and
especially due to the fact the previous chair had resigned and the CROP
allocation deadline, the NCUC EC decided not to allocate the slot - which
is why, according to the crop rules, we are only being able to use the slot
now.

I reinstate here my argument: maybe its time for us to think of ways of
either developing better outreach plans with our regional GSEs - the lack
of crop slots leaves us without opportunities of doing local engagement in
the regions - or work with what we have and think of a collective way of
better allocating such resources. But the smaller amount of slots does in
fact leave slightly without resources when comparing to other parts of the
community.

I hope I have cleared that out.

Em qua, 6 de fev de 2019 às 14:14, Collin Kurre <collin at article19.org>
escreveu:

> 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> 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/c8bcce82/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/c8bcce82/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/c8bcce82/attachment.gif>