[NCUC Finance] ICANN FY14 Budget Process: Presentation Materials from Call #2

Mon Jan 21 21:15:35 CET 2013

I think we should simultaneously use the system we have and advocate
against it, including at the NCPH meeting next week.

m

On 21 January 2013 20:07, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> 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<https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/Community+Ad+Hoc+Group+Workspace>
> . ****
>  ****
> 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/df7a67ff/attachment.html>