[NA-Discuss] ICANN budget discussion

[Evan Leibovitch]

To Nick's offer of:

> We are of course happy to arrange a further teleconference at a more
> 'western hemisphere-friendly' time if there's interest


Darlene replied:
> I would be interested.
>   

So would I.

However, wanting to have a briefing that would be convenient to NARALO
(and, I would assume, also LACRALO) does not reduce my complete disgust
with the budget discussion process to date as it relates to At-Large.

As many of you know, I keep -- interesting -- hours, and a 22:00PST time
is not generally a problem. My concern is more with the timing than the
time. Consider:

- The announcement of the briefing on the At-Large mailing list offered
less than 48 hours notice to a global audience of ALS volunteers (most
of whom, by definition, have other non-ICANN volunteer tasks to balance)

- The briefing is to be given on the very last day of the first public
comment period on the budget. (In fact, the actual deadline may pass
while the call is going on). Any later briefing for the convenience of
NARALO (and, I would assume, also LACRALO) would take place after the
deadline is passed.

Is this a fair way to solicit public comment that is informed and
engaging? A last-day, past-the-deadline briefing suggests that the
information will be all one-way and that we, again, will have next to no
valuable input on the matter.

I note that EURALO has been most active on this, having made a statement
posted by Wolf Ludwig to the ALAC list on March 27. Its main point was
that it's impossible to engage in an appropriate discussion of how much
ICANN spends -- or should spend -- on At-Large because nobody outside
staff really know exactly what At-Large costs.

If there is to be any real form of active engagement over the efficient
use of At-Large resources (explicitly including staff dedicated to our
service), then we must be given an accurate and transparent accounting
of what's currently being spent. At the present time we have absolutely
no way to justify the "value" ICANN gets from At-Large because we have
no good idea what it spends on us. And how do we ask for outreach funds
when we don't know what might already be spent on outreach?

To the cynical amongst us (and I've heard this from more than one
person), this obfuscation is a primary tool of staff control over
At-Large (and I don't mean at Nick's level). If we don't know what's
being spent on us, we can't have any meaningful part in a discussion of
the proper resource allocation. Questions such as "can volunteers do
certain tasks more efficiently than staff if given the appropriate
framework" cannot even be asked, because we have no frames of reference.
ALAC's budget WG is basically toothless because it has next to nothing
to work with. There were some glimmers of a more-transparent process
with the Summit, but I emphasize "glimmers" -- we were still never told
why or how its arbitrary ceiling of $500K was determined.

Having said all that, I would certainly like a briefing at a time more
convenient to the Americas -- especially one that gives more than two
days' notice. But I would also ask that briefing be prepared to answer
questions related to why the budget process, as it affects At-Large, is
so utterly opaque.

- Evan