Dear Xavier, Thanks for taking the initiative to establish contact. Before responding to your questions below, let me make it clear that the SOP WG values the collaboration it has with you as ICANN's CFO and wants to assure that that collaborations continues and develops further. "general understanding of the frustration" That said, Bart has informed you correctly. As a working group we have been disappointed on quite a few occasions in the past, by very superficial formal responses to SOP comments on Ops Plans & Budgets and Strategic Plans that we considered to be quite significant. In addition to that -and as a result of the absence of improvements based on our input- we have been repeating certain important comments on ICANN's Plans on numerous occasions and year after year. As you undoubtedly are aware, the goal of the WG is to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in ICANN's strategic and Operating planning and budgetary processes. A situation in which that participation -through the investment of a large amounts of time , expertise and dedication- hardly results in any changes for the better, is not a very satisfactory one. Not for the SOP WG, but more importantly, not for the ccNSO and the wider ccTLD community. "List of specific issues or matters that drive frustration" I am not going to provide you with a list. That's too frustrating... But I am sure that from the information above you will get the picture. Earlier, you referred us to ICANN's summary comments on the community's comments on the FY'14 Ops Plan and Budget. Under reference #99 to #112, ICANN's reaction to the comments the SOP submitted in June, is presented. Undoubtedly, the following two examples will illustrate how wholly insufficient ICANN's reaction to quite substantial input, is: * On our comment that the FY 14 ops Plan & Budget lacks measurable goals (a comment that was widely echoed by the community during the Durban meeting and that we have made repeatedly in the past), ICANN reacts with the statement that "metrics and deliverables are continuously being developed". I can only qualify that as a silly response: how can the budget and ops plan have been approved (last month) if deliverables and metrics are still being developed? * On our comment that the rationale behind a 23.8% increase in expenses for ICANN operations has to be clarified, the reaction is a two sentence reference to a new strategic planning process. Which comes not even close to a rationale..
From the above examples, It is quite clear to me that the SOP WG spends more brainpower and time on its comments, than ICANN spends on its reaction.
And there is your "way forward". The way forward -in short- is to make sure that ICANN really engages with the community, by taking input from the community very seriously. And that not only means matching valuable input with an appropriate response, but also means using that input to continuously improve. We will convey a message similar to the one above to ICANN's CEO and Board Chair. Roelof Meijer SOP WG Chair From: Xavier J. Calvez [mailto:xavier.calvez@icann.org] Sent: maandag 16 september 2013 17:01 To: Roelof Meijer Subject: SOP feedback from Bart Roelof, Bart mentioned to me the SOP's frustration coming from the responses to the SOP's public comments. I definitely would like to improve the value that we deliver through the public comment process and would very much like to get a few minutes of your time to try to address some of the following: * general understanding of the frustration * List of specific issues or matters that drive frustration * Defining a way forward I am hoping that we could at least start addressing some of the above with a call. I appreciate any availability you can provide. Thank you in advance. Xavier