[NCUC Finance] ICANN FY14 Budget Process: Presentation Materials from Call #2
William Drake
william.drake at uzh.ch
Mon Jan 21 21:07:17 CET 2013
Hi
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> You guys seem to be completely missing my point about funding requests.
>
> The point is not that we should be "unilateral ascetics" while all the others are sticking their snouts in the trough and lapping up whatever is there, but that we should not prevent the emergence of a "gimme" culture in which constituencies perpetually ask ICANN to fund whatever idea they have on an ad hoc - and competitive - basis. We should push for FIXED amounts of support that are absolutely UNIFORM across all constituencies. We then make our own decisions about how that money is spent.
I doubt anyone's missing this point, which you've made many times, and which some of us have agreed with.
>
> So no, we should not have to ask for "specific things such as e-platforms." ICANN should provide a fixed, appropriate sum for constituency-related management. That sum should be absolutely the same for ALL constituencies or SGs. If we think we need to spend that money on e-platforms, we spend it on e-platforms.
Understood. Personally I doubt this will ever be how ICANN does its budgeting, Ronald Coase be damned. So I'm willing to advocate it as a model, but in the meanwhile for this FY we need to deal with the process they're following, which means asking for "specific things such as e-platforms", or we will merely be sitting around in principled self denial while others dance merrily around with their winnings.
>
> Do you not see the obvious reasons for my approach?
Again, I suspect we do.
> It avoids the rat race, the corruption and the problems that stem from the ad hoc approach. If we ask for this that and the other thing; NPOC asks for that plus three other things; Cade asks for that times five and whatever else her febrile imagination can think of; then we have to match that demand, or risk being outstripped in the amount of resources we get form ICANN. It is an obvious rate race that we can't win, a classic tragedy of the commons scenario, in which whoever runs out and demands and grabs for the most at the expense of other constituencies, wins.
We don't have to 'win,' but if for example NPOC gets xyz funds to do abc, I'd like to see us submit and receive comparably.
>
> Our approach to these demands should be very simple: give constituencies a fixed amount each year. Propose a reasonable amount. Ensure that that amount is exactly what all constituencies get, nothing more, nothing less. NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> As soon as you introduce lobbying and competition and ad hoc ICANN funding requests, you triple the amount of time we have to spend on this and you trigger a competitive game which gives ICANN tremendous discretionary power over who gets what. The task is to avoid that.
>
> So, Maria's approach:
>
> " Overall, from my days on staff, I think we'll do well out of this if we put in a good number of finite/discrete requests with decent rationales to them. They'll feel they have to give us something."
>
> Is EXACTLY what we need to avoid. It sounds innocent enough considered in isolation, but you are missing the obvious competitive game it sets into motion from the other constituencies. They, too, will all think "ask for the moon, and they will have to give us something." The whole approach is poisonous. It creates a game we cannot win.
>
> What is so difficult to understand about that?
Nothing. Except that you're berating us for not instantly behaving in accordance with your preferred model of the world, rather than the model ICANN is actually following, which is frankly a bit weird. If you think ICANN should not make any allocations or plans in the next two months until it's torn up and rebuilt its budget process on grounds nobody else seems to be contemplating, then go ahead and advocate that position. If others find it compelling, maybe NCUC could join the fray. But meanwhile we small minded little people will have to fill out the forms that are due in two months or we get zip.
Cheers,
Bill
>
>
> From: finance-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:finance-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:43 AM
> To: Brenden Kuerbis
> Cc: Finance Team NCUC
> Subject: Re: [NCUC Finance] Fwd: ICANN FY14 Budget Process: Presentation Materials from Call #2
>
> Thanks, Bill.
>
> 1 Endorsing what Bill has said; there's no reason to be backwards about asking for $$ for specific things such as e-platforms, and I'll share that message and the timings with the relevant list. They need to narrow down what it is they want to build, platform-wise, and then we can work with them to put the application together.
>
> 2 Brendan, on the call I think the message re. the deadline was that they'll do rolling considerations of applications received and prefer to get them sooner rather than later. I suspect there may be a somewhat higher chance of success for getting it in sooner, i.e. in advance of March 22 deadline, but that's just my hunch.
>
> 3 Bill, re. the IGF Azerbajan event, yes yes yes. In fact I have some ideas about that, content-wise that I'll share with you.
>
>
> All the best, m
>
> On 21 January 2013 15:28, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:
> Thanks Bill,
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Welcome to where the action is…We had an ICANN budget call the other night. Initial presentation painfully snoozy but useful details in the follow up, please see the attached docs. Important points: 22 March deadline for Fast Track budget requests due
>
>
> However, according to ICANN's timeline, all fast track requests will be evaluated by staff by Apr 1. So it seems that, in order to have a full consideration of our request (and as a matter of courtesy), we should submit far earlier than Mar 22.
>
> -- B
>
>
> (e.g. for the IGF Baku meeting in the fall, where I'd like to organize an NCUC workshop and/or outreach event); 19 April Regular budget requests due. Need to learn to work via their wiki. And so on...
>
> Last year we asked for and received less than pretty much everyone else in ICANN land. Personally, I see no point in maintaining a principled asceticism that is not shared by or even known to anyone else. We will not be corrupted if we ask for a little support for e-platforms, admin, outreach, whatever, so hopefully we can start from a vision of where we'd like to be go and leverage opportunities accordingly.
>
> Over to you, Maria :-)
>
> Bill
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> From: Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange at icann.org>
> Subject: ICANN FY14 Budget Process: Presentation Materials from Call #2
> Date: January 19, 2013 3:15:17 AM GMT+01:00
> To: "Alain Berranger " <alain.berranger at gmail.com>, Allan Macgillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>, Bill Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, "Bret Fausett " <bret at internet.pro>, "Byron Holland " <byron.holland at cira.ca>, 'Chris Chaplow ' <chris at andalucia.com>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com>, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>, Eduardo Monge <eduardo.monge at fod.ac.cr>, "Jonathon Nevett " <jon at donuts.co>, KEITH DRAZEK <kdrazek at Verisign.com>, "Lynn Gravel " <lynn.gravel at cira.ca>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "Milton Mueller " <mueller at syr.edu>, Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, "Paul Diaz " <pdiaz at pir.org>, Raimundo Beca <rbeca at imaginaccion.cl>, "Robin Gross " <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Roelof Meijer " <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, Sharon van Dort <sharon.vandort at sidn.nl>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>, Tim Switzer <timswitzer at dotgreen.org>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek at icann.org>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers at icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "Jun Murai " <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, Karla Valente <karla.valente at icann.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Lesley Cowley <lesley at nominet.org.uk>, "Louis Lee " <louis at louie.net>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Matt Serlin <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>, "Patrik F?ltstr?m " <patrik at frobbit.se>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole at icann.org>
> Cc: Aba Diakite <aba.diakite at icann.org>, "Maya S. Reynolds" <maya.reynolds at icann.org>, Ken Redhead <ken.redhead at icann.org>, "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
>
> Yesterday, Thursday 17 January, the ICANN Finance team and representatives of the Community held our second webinar/call for the FY14 Budget Process.
>
> Attached please find the materials that were used for this presentation and conversation: they are also posted on theFinance Community wiki.
>
> If you are already a Confluence Wiki user, simply click the link to go to this wiki space. If you have never entered into the ICANN Community Wiki, please let me know and I will get your account activated.
> *Paul, I noted already that you do not have an account, so you will be receiving an email shortly from our Wiki team to assist you in obtaining credentials.
>
> To keep everyone up to speed, following the Prague Finance Community Working Session in June 2012, several Community Ad Hoc Groups were formed. The main goal was to improve the Budget Process, Timeline, Structure and Content by utilizing the existing expertise within the Community. With 2 Webinar/Conference Calls and 1 Face to Face in Toronto, this group gained a lot of ground on what works, what doesn’t, what can be changed in one fiscal year, and how to continue working together in the next budget cycle. Not all perfect, but absolutely big strides in the right direction to a better working relationship.
>
> Now two FY14 processes are upon all of us:
> 1. Building the FY14 Budget with Community Input from now through the end of April (Budget reviews and posting to be completed by 13 May)
> 2. Completing the SO AC SG Additional Budget Requests by 19 April (early submissions for early approval for early FY14 implementation due 22 March)
>
> In the attachments (and on the Wiki) you will find the presentation that includes complete timeline for both of these processes.
>
> Additionally, please find the Process, Guidelines, Criteria and Template needed to complete the Additional Budget requests. Both the Finance team and the Staff Liaisons from Policy, including Registry and Registrar, will work with you to complete your requests as needed.
>
> I have attached the latest Community Leader list with your corresponding staff liaisons for your convenience, but remember that controller at icann.org is the mailbox to send all questions and your completed request forms.
>
>
> Janice Douma Lange on behalf of the ICANN Finance team
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finance mailing list
> Finance at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/finance
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finance mailing list
> Finance at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/finance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Finance mailing list
> Finance at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/finance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/finance/attachments/20130121/0c4dbdea/attachment.html>
More information about the Finance
mailing list