[NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Draft of Public Comments - ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Ops Plan

Thu Mar 1 10:24:50 EET 2018

Hi,

I just had a quick read through the Council's comment and i think it looks
great. The SCBO did a good job in developping this. I don't have any
substantial comment but maybe just on the form.

When reading through and having read our own comment, i can feel the same
person was holding the pen on both comments and I would like to thank Ayden
for the work done there as well. I was wondering if there was a way to
remove some paragraphs which reads exactly the same  in both comments? I
believe this would be a way to keep both comments original. Someone outside
the GNSO reading them would feel like either one copied paragraphs from the
other group. There are some paragraphs that i would love to only remain in
our comment because i believe we should take ownership of them and not be
replicated in the council's comment because actually we were the first to
put them forward in our comment. I don't know whether this makes any sense.

I am not sure how this can be done now that the council draft is also out.
I don't want any paragraph to be removed from our comment because it is
ready to be submitted but if there are ways to remove those from the
council comment, that would be great.

Lastly and i know we have reached consensus on the paragraph on Fellowship
program (and should no longer argue on it) but after reading what Council
suggests, I would have loved for us to clear ours and keep the one on the
council comment as it is more elaborate and very clear than ours.

Thanks,
Arsene

------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
& Mexico
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
- AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN's GNSO Council
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (
Mauritius
<http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>)*
- *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
Freedom.

Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
<http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)

2018-03-01 10:02 GMT+02:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> I think this was always the fear; that the comment would be actively
> shaped by some voices, and then someone would come in a day before the
> (Council) deadline with substantive edits that are inconsistent with what
> the other 20+ members of the SCBO debated and agreed on over the space of
> five calls and 200+ emails. How we push back given whom has submitted these
> comments is challenging; I don't want the rest of the SCBO to feel like
> their concerns have not been heard, but ultimately, the SCBO has no
> delegated authority - the correspondence we sent can only go out (under the
> name of the GNSO Council) if there are no objections from a single member
> of the GNSO Council. So we seem kind of stuck. We did ask for feedback and
> we received it... some of the recent edits that have come in are not bad,
> it's just we discussed them already (with representatives from the same
> stakeholder group), and the prose we put forward was what everyone had
> found comfort with... anyway, it is what it is.
>
> As for the bullet point on SubPro - there was a concern that an initial
> draft of our comment was too vague and did not say what policy support we
> actually need. However, we then had difficulties identifying precisely what
> support we would need, in part because we are not privy to the org's
> internal timelines and precise resource allocations for project IDs. We
> could not even find out how much the RDS PDP WG's legal advice last year
> cost, which we had hoped might guide us in ensuring there was a sufficient
> budget allocation this year for further advice. On the Council call last
> week members of the SubPro PDP WG mentioned concerns about the lack of
> resources in the budget for their needs. The Council Chair subsequently
> consulted with the SubPro leadership team to understand what resources they
> projected needing and came back with that language, and I think it is good.
>
> Only in the past hour she has submitted a new suggestion to the mailing
> list which I think might address your concern? I am pasting below the
> Council Chair's suggested addition:
>
> *Second, the GNSO Council wishes to propose an improvement to ICANN org’s
> budget development process. The GNSO Council met in January to identify and
> prioritise its policy development and other activities in the coming year.
> We believe that the results of this exercise would prove an extremely
> effective tool to ICANN org in its development of the annual budget, in
> that it would provide the organization with clear, current status
> anticipated timelines and thus help the organization more accurately
> account for policy implementation in the annual budget. The GNSO Council
> considers a more robust information gathering approach by ICANN org to be
> an important and necessary maturation in its budgeting and fiscal prudence.*
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 1 March 2018 6:28 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for this,
> I reviewed the comment (also last edits by Donna). I think it is getting
> shape well but still, we have to be cautious with regard to other groups
> comments since not all of them were that active in SCBO and may ask for
> last minute changes.
> I am thinking if we can suggest more about supporting PDP work and not
> just highlighting subpro , one suggestion was that consideration should be
> made for budgeting the PDPs and their upcoming implementation based on GNSO
> council planning. maybe adding more consultation from finance dept to the
> council on that matter. do you think that is possible at this stage?
> after the comments period, the council still has to engage at Puerto Rico
> meeting in the budget-related sessions and with finance team.
>
> thanks again for the work done there and steering the effort.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2018-02-28 6:48 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have sent this communication through to the Council on behalf of the
>> Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations. I am sharing this here
>> on our list for two reasons; firstly, to make sure our Councilors are happy
>> with it (it would be embarrassing for any concerns to be flagged on the
>> Council list - please try to resolve them here or with me directly), and
>> secondly, to see if there might be any elements that we would like to
>> borrow and address in our (NCSG) comment on the Budget. Happy to hear your
>> thoughts. Thank you.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 27 February 2018 10:31 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On behalf of the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations,
>> please find attached the latest working draft of our comments on the FY19
>> Budget for your review.
>>
>> As mentioned on our Council call last Thursday, we are seeking to submit
>> these comments on behalf of the Council on 8 March absent any objections
>> from a member of the Council.
>>
>> Please can you review the attached file by close of business in your
>> timezone this Friday, 2 March. We will then consider your comments on our
>> call on Monday, 5 March and submit a revised version of this comment for
>> your final review immediately after our call on Monday. Thank you very much.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> 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/20180301/d27f3c89/attachment.htm>