Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> Something that concerns me greatly is the reduction in the number of CROP
> slots, from five to three, and the new requirement that all slots can only
> be used regionally. In our comment on the budget I would suggest we call
> for the program to be restored to how it was, back in FY18, when it worked
> well and before it was arbitrarily changed by ICANN staff without community
> consultation.


I think we all agree on this one. Every cut in the constituency budget hits
the NCSG the hardest.

-Raoul

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 20:12, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Thanks Bruna,
>
> Something that concerns me greatly is the reduction in the number of CROP
> slots, from five to three, and the new requirement that all slots can only
> be used regionally. In our comment on the budget I would suggest we call
> for the program to be restored to how it was, back in FY18, when it worked
> well and before it was arbitrarily changed by ICANN staff without community
> consultation.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 1:06 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> 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/20190206/0f22303a/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/20190206/0f22303a/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/20190206/0f22303a/attachment.gif>