February 2019 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency (BC) comment regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process The BC thanks ICANN Org for the proposal on a 2-year process as a mechanism to create more time to plan ICANN activities. Noting that the current time-frame for the planning process is 15 month, the BC believes this is adequate to address ICANN fiscal activities in tandem with the approved strategic plan. However, the BC would like to submit the following questions and responses to questions poised. Question : Is there any precedence for this type of budgeting plan over a 2-year cycle? A budgeting plan for a 5-year Operations/Strategic plan with annual incremental/decremental budget provision do exist but a 2-yearly revolving activities planning may be duplicative and engender an excessive oversight into the staff responsibility domain and may not be the best use of precious community time. Responses to Questions posed to the Community Question 1 - Does the community agree that the yearly planning cycle does not provide sufficient time for community extensive input and interaction on the operating plan and budget? No. The yearly planning cycle provides sufficient time. Question 2 - Does the community believe that more time for planning provides more transparency? Yes but the current time is quite sufficient. For the following questions, the answers are embedded in bold. Question 3 – How and who should set ICANN’s priorities? The current ICANN strategic plan does not prioritize the 5 strategic objectives, they are equally important. • Should parts of the strategic plan be prioritized of the 5 years it applies to? Yes • From the strategic trends exercises conducted with several community organizations during 2018: o “there is no prioritization, everything is #1 and nothing is #1”. There is need for prioritization. o “are the community priorities aligned with ICANN mission/vision?” Yes. o “Focus on technical functions as a priority and avoid allowing budget constraints to negatively affect them” Yes. Question 4 – Should policy development and implementation activities be integral to the planning cycle? For the purpose of better using the limited availability of the community stakeholders, already stretched, and to appropriately allocate ICANN’s support resources, policy development needs and activities could be considered during the planning process: • Should the policy development activities be planned? Yes. • What should be planned collectively by the SO/AC? Based on exploration and need. • What should be planned by the GNSO and ccNSO? Policy Development works, Reviews, Research. Question 5 - What activities, other than policy development, should be planned and by whom? Examples: Reviews - SO/AC with support from ICANN org. Question 6 - Should the planning process include a formalized dedicated phase to plan for SO/AC activities? If so, how many years should be planned for? Yes, 5 years in sync with the 5-year Strategic Plan. Process questions: • Would it be beneficial to insert, in the early part of the planning process, a phase of activity planning resulting in a document submitted for a first public comment period, and follow it by an operating plan and budget development phase which would be the subject of a second public comment period? Yes. • What are the barriers to community engagement in the planning process? Lack of available time? Yes, as most community members are volunteers. Complexity of the information produced? No. Complexity or length of the planning process? No. Lack of relevance or interest? No. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, with input from the BC’s Finance Committee. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021–25
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 12, 2019

Feb. 12, 2019

Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. The BC welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on the draft ICANN Strategic Plan for FY 2021 – 25. Overall, the BC agrees with the content of the Plan, but notes the following suggestions:. Regarding the Introduction: The BC notes that ICANN is proposing to amend its Vision statement in this next Strategic Plan, therefore it makes sense to acknowledge this somewhere in the Introductory language. On the 6th paragraph and last sentence, BC recommends that a link reference for the mentioned bylaws be provided. Question: What constitutes the global public interest? BC thinks this phrase needs to be defined before it is used. As noted most recently in our Jun-2013 comment to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2), here are the principles and process the BC suggests to define the global public interest for ICANN purposes: The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for ICANN. The definition should be derived through a process that is open to the ICANN community and Internet stakeholders – including a prominent role for representatives of governments, which often claim to have unique standing to know what is in the public interest of their citizens. The BC notes the Mission of ICANN has not been changed, and supports this decision. Regarding Strategic Objectives: The BC notes that Strategic Objectives result from a diligent outreach and information gathering process, and generally supports objectives that are surfaced with this level of rigor and diverse input. To the extent there is implicit priority in how ICANN lists these Strategic Objectives, it stands to reason that #3 should be first because that is in itself ICANN’s main remit. However, Strategic Goal 3.4 concerning new gTLDs seems tactical and not strategic, and not consistent with the level of import of other points in this section, particularly in light of the weakness of initial new gTLD impacts. We agree Security is next most important, given the continued abuse of DNS and the resultant lack of trust in, for example, web browsing and email, two globally accessible and pervasive systems built on DNS. Improving the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model is clearly a priority. ICANN is rightfully developing a reputation for being slow, combative, and less transparent. Decisions and process in the EPDP are just the latest examples in this regard. As to geopolitical issues, ICANN appears at risk of being marginalized by governments and organizations that wish to increase their influence over internet policy, as evidenced by policies originating out of the EU, China, and Russia. If ICANN truly wants to be a ‘Champion’ of the open internet it surely needs to retain or regain its footing on the global stage. Notwithstanding the opening paragraph in this section, stating a Strategic Objective of financial sustainability incurs moral hazard. One can achieve financial stability by increasing revenue or operating more efficiently. But only the latter involves the true discipline ICANN needs, based on observing spending trends over the 5 years of the prior (current) Strategic Plan. This Objective should be re-worded to reflect only Goal 5.2, and possibly 5.3. To this extent, the BC welcomes the ‘Operating Plan’ which the document states is forthcoming. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Tim Chen, and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

3 3

Business Constituency comment on Draft ICANN FY20 Operating Plan and Budget
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 8, 2019

Feb. 8, 2019

Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Draft ICANN FY20 Operating Plan and Budget. The BC is pleased to submit this comment. We thank ICANN Org for producing a comprehensive Operating Plan & Budget proposal that has benefited from comments on past drafts. In this respect, we can say that this draft aspires to meet our expectation though we would require clarifications in some areas of the Budget: 1. On page 6 on ICANN Operations: Cash Expenses by Category in the Introduction and Highlights document, and analyzing the pie chart; we would like to know why Travel and Meeting shrunk by 1% when it is said that the level of funding for FY19 will be sustained in FY20? And also why is the Personnel cost increased by 3% at the same time? 1. On page 8 on ICANN Operations: Fund under Management, in the Introduction and Highlights document, and analyzing the bar chart; what is the explanation for the decrease in new gTLD fund from $120m in FY18 to $112m in FY19 forecast and FY20 projection? Also, can a relationship be established between the above and the analysis on the same subject contained on page 23 of the …Total Budget Document (I.e. Document 2)? 1. On page 14 on Information Transparency Initiative, in the Introduction and Highlights document, nothing was said about the Open Data Initiative (ODI). So, what is the state of the ODI and can you advise under what project line this is captured? 1. On page 20 on ICANN Operations FY21 Projections, in the … Total Budget Document; if the community facing funding is flat at 50% why should personnel fringe benefits (not key remuneration) not similarly adjusted by 50%? Requests NCPH Intersessional In FY19, BC proposed that the FY19 edition of the Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH) Intersessional be skipped to release funding for other key community activities like the Fellowship program and Next Gen. In FY20, the BC recommends that the NCPH Budget item be restored for a biennial NCPH intersessional to foster NCPH understanding and collaboration. CROP Noting that support for Community Regional Outreach Programme (CROP) was halved in FY19, compared to FY18 level, the BC in consideration of the need for BC Outreach efforts to be sustained requests that the CROP be restored to its FY18 level. It is BC’s opinion that reaching out to the global stakeholders community should be sustained in view of increasing cases of Internet shut-down around the world and diverse regulations (e.g. GDPR) with potential damaging implication for business users of the Internet if not effectively engaged in a collaborative manner. This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye and members of the BC Finance Committee. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0