[NA-Discuss] ICANN budget discussion

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear Evan and NARALO Members:

It may be useful in connection with this to acquaint you with a few 
recent events.

At the ALAC meeting, the issues you raise were also discussed. It was 
decided that ALAC would make a statement on the budget framework which 
would be compiled based upon all the recent Advisories and community 
statements, including RALO statements, which would have a financial 
impact. I offered to compile this together, and I've just sent it along 
to Gareth and the alac working list. Gareth offered to take on the 
finalisation of the text.

Separately, I've asked Kevin if there's any problem if the statement 
comes in a bit after the formal end of the public comment period. I 
haven't heard back yet, but I'm sure this won't be a problem.

Finally, one of the things that  Kevin discussed  on the two briefings 
held for At-Large so far (one earlier this week, one today) is that your 
request for a more complete picture of overall spending on At-Large (and 
other bodies / processes of ICANN) would actually be included in the 
budget when it is posted for public comment on or before May 17th.

We will shortly publicise the  availability of the recording, both audio 
and Adobe Connect, of this morning's briefing, for those of you who wish 
to have a look/listen.

Finally - it may be useful to know that there will be a consultation on 
the actual budget - from May 17th for 30 days - and a briefing at that 
time (two of them, one convenient to the Western Hemisphere, and another 
to the Eastern) will be arranged.

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 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
>
>   

-- 

-- 

Regards,

 

Nick Ashton-Hart

Director for At-Large

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83

USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637

Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44

Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468

email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org

Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com / 
Skype: nashtonhart

Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart