[NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget

[Mueller, Milton L]

Yes, I found the wording of that section to be very moderate indeed.

From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 12:38 PM
To: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
Cc: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath <corinnecath at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget

Hi Martin,

Thanks for reviewing the comment so promptly.

A very quick response: I do not advocate for cutting the fellowship/NextGen programmes at a whim here, and I do not advocate for doing so "without further information." I think the current wording is very neutral and I stand by it: "We support the rightsizing of the fellowship and NextGen programmes. We encourage ICANN to assess these programmes in terms of bringing active and productive contributors into ICANN’s policy development process working groups."

I am open to changing this text if you can provide alternative wording but to be honest, I think it addresses your concerns here already.

Best wishes,

Ayden


-------- Original Message --------
On 8 February 2018 6:13 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:

I support the draft in general, but there some conclusions I cannot arrive from what I know, and therefore will not support.

I would not say that icann is a generous employer, but I think is ok to ask to further understand rhe salary structure. We might even find out that a big oart of icann is contracted and not employed and not well paid.

Same goes for the next gen and the fellowship, for me it is not an obvios statement we should cut them back without further information. It would be irresponsible to demand that and I know we are agreeing on that at Council level.

In that sense I would be more careful in the way of expressing our concerns, but not our certainty, because if we wrong our certainty statement can do damage and even loose credibility over time. While if we wrote our concerns appropriately there is no downside and we might bring needed light to a topic.

Best,
Martin

Cheers,
Martin

On 8 Feb 2018 4:27 am, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

I have prepared a first draft of a proposed NCSG comment on the FY19 budget. This took quite some time to comb through, and I might have missed some things. So before I share this comment on the main discussion list and face the inevitable wrath of criticism and dislike, I thought I might share it here to get some initial feedback. I have also cc'd in a few other people who might not be on this mailing list but who I think might be able to offer some constructive edits on its contents:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing

Many thanks for your help,

Ayden

P.S. Carlos, if one sentence looks familiar, it's because I copied and pasted it from an email you sent to the NCSG list last year re: our Reserve Fund comment. I hope this is okay. Thanks!

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto: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/20180208/1001e564/attachment.htm>