Thoughts on the Proposed ICANN Org Budget for FY20

Sun Jan 6 23:42:40 EET 2019

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190106/bda7f947/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20190106/bda7f947/attachment.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/20190106/bda7f947/attachment.jpeg>