questions for Goran

[Thato Mfikwe]

I see it has already been addressed.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 12:43 AM Thato Mfikwe <thatomfikwe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Another question you may wish to consider, if appropriate, "Why did NCSG
> and its constituencies receive the lowest allocation on FY19ABRs?", thanks.
>
> Thato Mfikwe.
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:06 PM Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> As you know, I posted on this list a call for input for the questions I
>> will discuss with Goran at our one on one.  The deadline was today, so I
>> came up with the following questions, with help from various folks
>> offline.  Of course, theoretically I could raise other issues in
>> conversation if there are things you have thought of recently.
>>
>> *NCSG Questions for Discussion with Goran Marby*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.     We understand that you wished to kickstart the phase two
>> discussion of the so-called unified access model.  However , we do feel
>> that the way the TSG report and process was created sideswipes the bylaws
>> mandated GNSO policy process.  It also contains a number of policy
>> assumptions which have not been agreed via the bottom up MS process as
>> required by ICANNs bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.     GNSO is working on PDP 3.0 implementation, and the entire
>> community is still waiting for the approval of workstream 2 accountability
>> recommendations, to reform the MS model.  Doesn’t the work that Brian
>> Cute is doing potentially lead to the same result, an undercutting of
>> community processes?
>>
>>
>>
>> 3.     We care about the reputation of ICANN, as a multistakeholder
>> model.  We think there is a need for transparency that meets the kind of
>> standards which western democracies have demonstrated through FOI
>> legislation.
>>
>> a.     You have more than once said, ICANN is not a regulator.  That is
>> true but we see no reason for less accountability and transparency.
>>
>> b.     Given the budget cuts on the community, and recent bad press
>> about the growth of ICANN staff despite falling revenues, do you have plans
>> to improve transparency in the internal budget process? As an example, we
>> would very much like more transparency on the portion of the budget on
>> policy development. Currently, you only have one figure covering the whole
>> budget for policy development across all SOs and ACs. We would like to
>> regularly see a lot more details on this, with a breakdown for each budget
>> for each SO and AC. The policy development budget is about 5% of ICANN's
>> total budget too, which strikes us as very low given this is our core
>> business.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.     We know we have occasionally annoyed you.  How can we improve our
>> relationship, without sacrificing our critical analysis of this highly
>> important MS process?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190607/49c07303/attachment.htm>