[NCSG-PC] NCSG Comment on ICANN Budget

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for the comments.
there were some suggestions in the current draft to change the tone and
make it more neutral. there are still work to be done there. I also think
that NCSG FC members can jump in here and share their thoughts.

I am looking forward other NCSG PC members suggestions and ideas to move
forward. I guess can try to submit the comment a few days later (while
since it is about the budget and there are time constraints)if we can
resolve the concerns and elaborate in some areas.

Best,

Rafik

2017-04-29 0:00 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> I’d like to thank those who stepped in to contribute to the budget
> comment. I sadly disagree with the tone and much of the content of the
> document. I do not endorse it.
>
> There was no way for me to edit the document without completely deleting
> much of what had previously been written there. I just didn’t feel that was
> an appropriate thing to do.
>
> Rather I have completed and submitted to the Comments Forum a Personal
> Comment, which I am attaching to this post. I welcome those who have
> stepped up to do the NCSG comment to consider what I had to say, borrow
> from my post, or disregard it completely.
>
> My objection to the NCSG comment as written consists of the following
> objections:
>
> 1. I believe it is too negative and accusatory and fails to recognize the
> hard work done by Finance and the unique nature of the first year of the
> Empowered Community.
>
> I have major problems with the process, and have expressed them in my
> Comment, along with suggested ways of improving cooperation and community
> input. However, I don’t believe any slights were deliberate or intentional.
> I believe the Community, including myself, erred in placing so many hard
> deadlines on Finance as part of the budget process in the new Bylaws. This
> is a year of adaptation but generalized critical comments without specific
> proposed solutions serve no purpose. And that is what much of the proposed
> NCSG comment consists of.
>
> 2.  I find the objections to ALAC expenditures to appear as a stand alone
> attack on the AC. There are a number of areas of expenditure that many of
> us would find questionable. Why focus only on these in the absence of
> criticism of other questionable expenses?
>
> 3. I don’t find staff retreats to be among the most pressing fiscal
> matters. After all, as a supplemental request components of the NCSG asked
> for their own retreats and the GNSO Council was actually  granted one.
> Should we not first oppose these retreats or is there a reason staff
> retreats are so onerous?
>
> 4. As noted in my personal comment, my biggest concern involves the lack
> of funding priority for core policy activities. I have focused on one
> unfunded proposal – that of $100,000 for external PDP support – and would
> encourage the NCSG to consider adopting this view.
>
> Although I can not endorse the comment, out of respect for the work done
> on the document I will not oppose it. I will abstain and hope my comments
> above as well as those in my personal comment will be considered by the PC.
>
> Regrettably, I have some domestic responsibilities to attend to this
> evening that must take priority over my volunteer activities here. Consider
> my abstention to be a permament one and feel free to borrow from, or
> ignore, my offerings on this matter.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170429/c473ce58/attachment.htm>