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

Tue Feb 13 03:55:52 EET 2018

Hi all,

I've revised the proposed NCSG comment again; this time to remark on the absence of CROP in the Budget (which, off-list, I have been advised has been discontinued) and to comment briefly on the spend on "professional services." I find it truly shocking that 73% of the Budget is proposed to be spent on staff and consultants (and not including other expenses that come with employing staff, like leasing office space and maintaining buildings, which comprises a further 7% of the Budget), and the only real cuts being made are to activities which support the community. It shows how much ICANN org values us...

Edits made to paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 20: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBia4z5QQFGz9vFUQUkS0lbZNqU6C5n4pyUmlH3m8e8/edit?usp=sharing

I'm going to send this out to the NCSG-Discuss list now to elicit further discussion.

Best wishes,

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 9 February 2018 9:57 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your comments on the Budget in the Google Doc, Rafik; I've replied directly and done my best to resolve your concerns. In particular please note the re-worded paragraph # 9 (constituency travellers). I'll put your question in #6 to Xavier on Monday when the [GNSO Council] Standing Committee on Budget and Operations has its next call with Finance.
>
> I have now removed the paragraph about the Intersessional, as perhaps it is better to be silent here rather than to praise something which may not have widespread support. This year's Intersessional was a trainwreck but I do think this is a disaster we have to own. Last year's Intersessional was brilliant. What was the difference? It wasn't content (as you said Rafik, the content rarely changes), but I do think it was the participant mix. Our 'side' was too silent at this year's meeting and we didn't have enough strong voices to counter the perspectives being shared by the CSG. When I think back to Reykjavik, I remember how great it was having Kathy and others engaging in real debates with the CSG. I didn't see enough of that this year; I cannot even think of any action items that came out of the forum. With the suggestion circulating (at least during the Council's Strategic Planning Session) that we may need to go down from 3 to 2 ICANN public meetings per year for budgetary reasons, and may want to tie a Council meeting in with the GDD Summit, I am reluctant to relinquish any support allocated to us that has made the core budget. But perhaps we could advocate tying the Intersessional in with the GDD Summit, an idea floated last year? I could see real benefits to that; on some issues, the contracted parties are our allies...
>
> Another thing: the Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). I made the point in this comment that I think it is wrong to cut this community support, because I feel very strongly that to make small cuts here which impact us, without tackling structural issues where the real costs lie, is the wrong approach. But how on earth could we expect ICANN to approve some of them? Some which 'we' submitted are genuinely embarrassing and would be an inappropriate use of funds if approved. I have not said anything on the main mailing list BUT ones like this, i.e. an [NCUC board game](https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2018-February/008789.html), should never have been submitted (in my opinion) and harm our reputation. Their submission was an Executive decision made without public consultation on the discussion list. I don't want this to sound like an attack against anyone, as that is not my intention, but I think we need to do some kind of internal reflection before submitting requests. This request for a board game will be seen by the entire community, will be mocked, and let's be real, won't be approved (nor should it!). Why do this to our reputation?
>
> Ayden
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 9 February 2018 8:07 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> thanks for the draft which is coming at a good time and allow us to work on it without pressure,
>> about the intercessional which is a separate topic not necessarily related to the budget, I am for an evaluation and assessment. I am not that convinced that issues were a matter of planning. The content is almost the same every year, just with small changes of few topics. I think after 5 years or more, it is a good time to review and think about improvement. I believe our CSG friends will be open and welcome that. Organizing it every other year can provide that opportunity and possibility for real change.
>>
>> I will review the budget and add my comments there.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-02-09 6:21 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> I think this year's Intersessional was unsuccessful, partially because of insufficient planning on our part, as well as the wrong delegates being in attendance. But I do think the concept itself is a good one and one which should continue. I am happy to remove this paragraph from the document altogether, however, if we do not have a common agreement on their value. I don't think it ranks among our most pressing concerns!
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> On 8 February 2018 10:14 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am one of those who questions the value of the intersessionals.
>>>>
>>>> I won't support continuing them every year. Every other year is a compromise I can accept.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>> On 08/02/18 20:14, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve had a chance to read your comments and congratulate you on doing so much work to go through the budget and prepare an intelligent evaluation of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with most of the comments but propose a few minor amendments here and there, which I will put onto the Google doc using suggest mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only point of disagreement is #17 your support for continued intersessionals. I don’t think there is consensus on that and in fact after the last one I heard several people who supported them question their value or frequency. A good middle ground might be to have them once every other year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I’ll enter my comments on the doc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor, [School of Public Policy](http://spp.gatech.edu/)
>>>>>
>>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>>
>>>>> Internet Governance Project
>>>>>
>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ayden Férdeline [mailto:icann at ferdeline.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 7:27 AM
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc [<ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is); Mueller, Milton L [<milton at gatech.edu>](mailto:milton at gatech.edu); crg at ISOC-CR.ORG; paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM; Corinne Cath [<corinnecath at gmail.com>](mailto:corinnecath at gmail.com)
>>>>> Subject: [Draft] Proposed NCSG Comment on the FY19 Budget
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> [https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/
>>>>>
>>>>> listinfo/ncsg-pc](https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20180212/c8f52934/attachment.htm>