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

Mon Jan 21 22:47:55 CET 2013

I made similar points to Milton in a hallway conversation about an hour ago.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think we should simultaneously use the system we have

I agree, for the reasons Bill specified

> and advocate against it,

I agree with this too, for the reasons MM specified. But...

IMO, the only way we will win a change in the model is if NCUC demonstrates
how a constituency be as, or more, transparent and accountable (and perhaps
consistent with ICANN overall strategy) in allocation.  Which raises a
question - does NCUC really want to develop and administer internal request
applications, evaluation criteria, etc. -all the steps required?  (to be
clear, if anyone can, NCUC can. its just a lot of admin)

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

> 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/20130121/77b7bafe/attachment.html>