Dear Lesley, Leonid, Fahd, Mathieu, Giovanni, all, Thank you for your thoughts, many valid points were made. I propose one of the two following approaches: * At least for the time being, the SOP suspends its work on strategic and operational plans and budgets. * I draft a letter to Xavier along the lines I suggested, to which I add that the SOP suspends its work pending a satisfactory response to that message. I will circulate the draft among you for your input * When the letter is finalized, I will send it to Xavier, cc'ing Fadi, Chris and Mike * We await a response and upon that, decide on further action Alternatively: as above, but it is the ccNSO Council that sends the above letter to ICANN's CEO and Board. What do you all think? Cheers, Roelof From: Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk] Sent: donderdag 12 september 2013 15:38 To: Roelof Meijer; 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org' Cc: 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: Re: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Hi, I share the frustrations! It is understandably a tempting option for us to resign/withdraw etc., but although that might result in some brief satisfaction, I do not feel that this would best serve the interests of the ccTLD community. The SOP committee and the ccNSO have together gained a great reputation for feedback on ICANN's strategic and operational plans and strategies (or lack of them). We should not lightly throw away the opportunity to continue in this capacity. Although I imagine that news of withdrawal might make life easier for some of the people on the receiving end of our feedback, it would leave us without a clear route for ccNSO inputs in the future.

From my point of view, I think that we need to think both tactically and strategically about how to ensure that our inputs are not lightly brushed off or even ignored going forward.

One approach might be something similar to that we took at the ICANN, Nairobi meeting in response to the former ICANN CEO's initial comments regarding the security of the DNS to the GAC - Council and SOP members may recall that we reached a similar peak of frustration and we produced a ccNSO statement that was made public, supported by others etc, read out at various opportunities. This seemed to be very effective in gaining community and industry media attention and achieving our goals at that time. Kind regards, Lesley Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: Thursday, 12 September 2013 11:44 To: "'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'" <ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Dear SOP members, Please find below Xavier Calvez's email, introducing the revised Report of Public Comments on the Draft FY14 Ops Plan and Budget. For your convenience (it is not that easy to find), I attach ICANN's summary comments on the community's comments. Under reference #99 to #112, you will find ICANN's reaction to the comments the SOP submitted in June. And a frustrating summary, it is. Two examples of what you will come across reading the document: * 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.. It is quite clear to me that we as SOP WG spend more brainpower and time on our comments, than ICANN spends on its reaction. Faced with that conclusion, I cannot help wondering if there's any point in continuing to call on you all to spent that brainpower and time on future ICANN Ops Plans, Budgets and Strategic Plans. I intend to send Xavier a message containing roughly the above, but would welcome your thoughts first. Cheers, Roelof PS: for your information, I also attach the approved FY14 Plan and Budget From: community-finance-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANN-Controller Sent: donderdag 5 september 2013 18:35 To: Xavier J. Calvez; community-finance@icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>; jcurran@arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>; dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>; Maya S. Reynolds; pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>; Drazek, Keith; Adams, Michael D.; Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; chris@andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com>; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>; Elisa Cooper; Paul Wilson; Lynn Gravel; Byron Holland Cc: Susie Johnson; ICANN-Controller; Anjali Vaswani Subject: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders and ICANN Finance Community Members, We are pleased to announce that the revised Report of Public Comment has been posted. This revision includes replies to comments received during the initial public comment period as well as the period during which the public comments were re-opened to allow for comments on the budget revisions presented in Durban. Please visit the following link to review the report. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm Regards, ICANN Finance Team controller@icann.org<mailto:controller@icann.org>

Hi Roelof and colleagues, As with the rest of you, I share the deep sense of frustration regarding ICANN's apparent lack of serious consideration of all the input the SOP provides. That said, I would caution against the suspension of the Working Group's activity. I say this for two reasons: 1) The wider community has come to rely on the good work that the SOP does. Without us, I fear that there would be no particular community input of any depth or rigour. 2) Suspending the SOP may briefly catch ICANN's attention, but it will likely not solve the problem of getting ICANN management to fully consider and respond to, and or act on, our input I would like to propose an alternative. We have consistently played by the rules and followed the process as good members of the community. Perhaps it is time to change the way we have engaged. Could we reach out to the other SO/ACs and solicit their support to get them to raise the issue of lack of ICANN follow up on SOP input, or perhaps simply "cut and paste" our work as their own. ICANN will be much more hard pressed to ignore the content if it is coming from numerous communities. We can raise the issue directly with Chris/Mike, the Board, the GAC, and the Board Finance Committee as well as at any and all public forums, as Lesley has reminded we did with the issues in Nairobi. In short, perhaps it is time we significantly ramped up the SOP's presence as opposed to stepping away. I could socialize this at the next SO/AC Chair call and if required, can and will escalate it directly to Fadi. To use a metaphor, perhaps we should "double down" rather than walk away from the table. Best regards, Byron From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: September-12-13 12:09 PM To: 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org'; 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Dear Lesley, Leonid, Fahd, Mathieu, Giovanni, all, Thank you for your thoughts, many valid points were made. I propose one of the two following approaches: * At least for the time being, the SOP suspends its work on strategic and operational plans and budgets. * I draft a letter to Xavier along the lines I suggested, to which I add that the SOP suspends its work pending a satisfactory response to that message. I will circulate the draft among you for your input * When the letter is finalized, I will send it to Xavier, cc'ing Fadi, Chris and Mike * We await a response and upon that, decide on further action Alternatively: as above, but it is the ccNSO Council that sends the above letter to ICANN's CEO and Board. What do you all think? Cheers, Roelof From: Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk] Sent: donderdag 12 september 2013 15:38 To: Roelof Meijer; 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org' Cc: 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: Re: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Hi, I share the frustrations! It is understandably a tempting option for us to resign/withdraw etc., but although that might result in some brief satisfaction, I do not feel that this would best serve the interests of the ccTLD community. The SOP committee and the ccNSO have together gained a great reputation for feedback on ICANN's strategic and operational plans and strategies (or lack of them). We should not lightly throw away the opportunity to continue in this capacity. Although I imagine that news of withdrawal might make life easier for some of the people on the receiving end of our feedback, it would leave us without a clear route for ccNSO inputs in the future.

From my point of view, I think that we need to think both tactically and strategically about how to ensure that our inputs are not lightly brushed off or even ignored going forward.

One approach might be something similar to that we took at the ICANN, Nairobi meeting in response to the former ICANN CEO's initial comments regarding the security of the DNS to the GAC - Council and SOP members may recall that we reached a similar peak of frustration and we produced a ccNSO statement that was made public, supported by others etc, read out at various opportunities. This seemed to be very effective in gaining community and industry media attention and achieving our goals at that time. Kind regards, Lesley Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: Thursday, 12 September 2013 11:44 To: "'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'" <ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Dear SOP members, Please find below Xavier Calvez's email, introducing the revised Report of Public Comments on the Draft FY14 Ops Plan and Budget. For your convenience (it is not that easy to find), I attach ICANN's summary comments on the community's comments. Under reference #99 to #112, you will find ICANN's reaction to the comments the SOP submitted in June. And a frustrating summary, it is. Two examples of what you will come across reading the document: * 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.. It is quite clear to me that we as SOP WG spend more brainpower and time on our comments, than ICANN spends on its reaction. Faced with that conclusion, I cannot help wondering if there's any point in continuing to call on you all to spent that brainpower and time on future ICANN Ops Plans, Budgets and Strategic Plans. I intend to send Xavier a message containing roughly the above, but would welcome your thoughts first. Cheers, Roelof PS: for your information, I also attach the approved FY14 Plan and Budget From: community-finance-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANN-Controller Sent: donderdag 5 september 2013 18:35 To: Xavier J. Calvez; community-finance@icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>; jcurran@arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>; dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>; Maya S. Reynolds; pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>; Drazek, Keith; Adams, Michael D.; Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; chris@andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com>; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>; Elisa Cooper; Paul Wilson; Lynn Gravel; Byron Holland Cc: Susie Johnson; ICANN-Controller; Anjali Vaswani Subject: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders and ICANN Finance Community Members, We are pleased to announce that the revised Report of Public Comment has been posted. This revision includes replies to comments received during the initial public comment period as well as the period during which the public comments were re-opened to allow for comments on the budget revisions presented in Durban. Please visit the following link to review the report. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm Regards, ICANN Finance Team controller@icann.org<mailto:controller@icann.org>

Dear all, I understand and share your frustration, and I also support looking for allies. I'll do my best in EURALO/ALAC. Sometimes organizations grow too much and they become victim of its own growth, which becomes their main "raison d'etre" beyond it's main mission. A retreat now would leave ICANN without any kind of checks and balances. ccTLDs have always been providing a wise balance to ICANN. A critical and well argumented voice is more needed now than ever in the past. jordi Al 13/09/13 08:43, En/na Vika Mpisane ha escrit:

Fully seconded, Byron! Walking away could simply leave Xavier & company quite happy, but doubling down with other SOs/ACs support will certainly be a wake up call.

Regards, Vika

From: Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> Date: Thursday 12 September 2013 8:16 PM To: "Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>, "'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'" <ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>>, "'ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-council@icann.org>'" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Hi Roelof and colleagues,

As with the rest of you, I share the deep sense of frustration regarding ICANN’s apparent lack of serious consideration of all the input the SOP provides.

That said, I would caution against the suspension of the Working Group’s activity.

I say this for two reasons:

1) The wider community has come to rely on the good work that the SOP does. Without us, I fear that there would be no particular community input of any depth or rigour.

2) Suspending the SOP may briefly catch ICANN’s attention, but it will likely not solve the problem of getting ICANN management to fully consider and respond to, and or act on, our input

I would like to propose an alternative.

We have consistently played by the rules and followed the process as good members of the community. Perhaps it is time to change the way we have engaged.

Could we reach out to the other SO/ACs and solicit their support to get them to raise the issue of lack of ICANN follow up on SOP input, or perhaps simply “cut and paste” our work as their own. ICANN will be much more hard pressed to ignore the content if it is coming from numerous communities.

We can raise the issue directly with Chris/Mike, the Board, the GAC, and the Board Finance Committee as well as at any and all public forums, as Lesley has reminded we did with the issues in Nairobi.

In short, perhaps it is time we significantly ramped up the SOP’s presence as opposed to stepping away. I could socialize this at the next SO/AC Chair call and if required, can and will escalate it directly to Fadi.

To use a metaphor, perhaps we should “double down” rather than walk away from the table.

Best regards,

Byron

*From:*owner-ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Roelof Meijer *Sent:* September-12-13 12:09 PM *To:* 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'; 'ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-council@icann.org>' *Subject:* [ccnso-council] RE: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear Lesley, Leonid, Fahd, Mathieu, Giovanni, all,

Thank you for your thoughts, many valid points were made.

I propose one of the two following approaches:

· At least for the time being, the SOP suspends its work on strategic and operational plans and budgets.

· I draft a letter to Xavier along the lines I suggested, to which I add that the SOP suspends its work pending a satisfactory response to that message. I will circulate the draft among you for your input

· When the letter is finalized, I will send it to Xavier, cc’ing Fadi, Chris and Mike

· We await a response and upon that, decide on further action

Alternatively: as above, but it is the ccNSO Council that sends the above letter to ICANN’s CEO and Board.

What do you all think?

Cheers, Roelof

*From:*Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk] *Sent:* donderdag 12 september 2013 15:38 *To:* Roelof Meijer; 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>' *Cc:* 'ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-council@icann.org>' *Subject:* Re: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Hi,

I share the frustrations!

It is understandably a tempting option for us to resign/withdraw etc., but although that might result in some brief satisfaction, I do not feel that this would best serve the interests of the ccTLD community.

The SOP committee and the ccNSO have together gained a great reputation for feedback on ICANN's strategic and operational plans and strategies (or lack of them). We should not lightly throw away the opportunity to continue in this capacity. Although I imagine that news of withdrawal might make life easier for some of the people on the receiving end of our feedback, it would leave us without a clear route for ccNSO inputs in the future.

From my point of view, I think that we need to think both tactically and strategically about how to ensure that our inputs are not lightly brushed off or even ignored going forward.

One approach might be something similar to that we took at the ICANN, Nairobi meeting in response to the former ICANN CEO's initial comments regarding the security of the DNS to the GAC - Council and SOP members may recall that we reached a similar peak of frustration and we produced a ccNSO statement that was made public, supported by others etc, read out at various opportunities. This seemed to be very effective in gaining community and industry media attention and achieving our goals at that time.

Kind regards,

Lesley

Lesley Cowley, OBE

CEO

Nominet

Minerva House

Edmund Halley Road

Oxford Science Park

Oxford, OX4 4DQ

UK

Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211

http://www.nominet.org.uk/

Twitter: @lesleycowley

*From: *Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> *Date: *Thursday, 12 September 2013 11:44 *To: *"'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'" <ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>> *Cc: *ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> *Subject: *[ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear SOP members,

Please find below Xavier Calvez’s email, introducing the revised Report of Public Comments on the Draft FY14 Ops Plan and Budget.

For your convenience (it is not that easy to find), I attach ICANN’s summary comments on the community’s comments.

Under reference #99 to #112, you will find ICANN’s reaction to the comments the SOP submitted in June.

And a frustrating summary, it is.

Two examples of what you will come across reading the document:

· 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..

It is quite clear to me that we as SOP WG spend more brainpower and time on our comments, than ICANN spends on its reaction. Faced with that conclusion, I cannot help wondering if there’s any point in continuing to call on you all to spent that brainpower and time on future ICANN Ops Plans, Budgets and Strategic Plans.

I intend to send Xavier a message containing roughly the above, but would welcome your thoughts first.

Cheers, Roelof

PS: for your information, I also attach the approved FY14 Plan and Budget

*From:*community-finance-bounces@icann.org <mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *ICANN-Controller *Sent:* donderdag 5 september 2013 18:35 *To:* Xavier J. Calvez; community-finance@icann.org <mailto:community-finance@icann.org>; jcurran@arin.net <mailto:jcurran@arin.net>; dmaher@pir.org <mailto:dmaher@pir.org>; Maya S. Reynolds; pdiaz@pir.org <mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>; Drazek, Keith; Adams, Michael D.; Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; chris@andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com>; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>; Elisa Cooper; Paul Wilson; Lynn Gravel; Byron Holland *Cc:* Susie Johnson; ICANN-Controller; Anjali Vaswani *Subject:* [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders and ICANN Finance Community Members,

We are pleased to announce that the revised Report of Public Comment has been posted. This revision includes replies to comments received during the initial public comment period as well as the period during which the public comments were re-opened to allow for comments on the budget revisions presented in Durban. Please visit the following link to review the report.

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm

Regards,

ICANN Finance Team

controller@icann.org <mailto:controller@icann.org>

-- Jordi Iparraguirre http://twitter.ipa.cat http://linkedin.ipa.cat

+1 Regards M.- Margarita Valdés Cortés Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences University of Chile www.nic.cl Tel: +5629407700 El 15-09-2013 11:32, HiroHOTTA escribió:

I totally concur with Byron. Hiro

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:16:26 -0400 Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca> wrote:

...

Hi Roelof and colleagues,

As with the rest of you, I share the deep sense of frustration regarding ICANN's apparent lack of serious consideration of all the input the SOP provides.

That said, I would caution against the suspension of the Working Group's activity.

I say this for two reasons:

1) The wider community has come to rely on the good work that the SOP does. Without us, I fear that there would be no particular community input of any depth or rigour.

2) Suspending the SOP may briefly catch ICANN's attention, but it will likely not solve the problem of getting ICANN management to fully consider and respond to, and or act on, our input

I would like to propose an alternative.

We have consistently played by the rules and followed the process as good members of the community. Perhaps it is time to change the way we have engaged.

Could we reach out to the other SO/ACs and solicit their support to get them to raise the issue of lack of ICANN follow up on SOP input, or perhaps simply "cut and paste" our work as their own. ICANN will be much more hard pressed to ignore the content if it is coming from numerous communities.

We can raise the issue directly with Chris/Mike, the Board, the GAC, and the Board Finance Committee as well as at any and all public forums, as Lesley has reminded we did with the issues in Nairobi.

In short, perhaps it is time we significantly ramped up the SOP's presence as opposed to stepping away. I could socialize this at the next SO/AC Chair call and if required, can and will escalate it directly to Fadi.

To use a metaphor, perhaps we should "double down" rather than walk away from the table.

Best regards, Byron

From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer Sent: September-12-13 12:09 PM To: 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org'; 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: [ccnso-council] RE: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear Lesley, Leonid, Fahd, Mathieu, Giovanni, all,

Thank you for your thoughts, many valid points were made.

I propose one of the two following approaches:

* At least for the time being, the SOP suspends its work on strategic and operational plans and budgets.

* I draft a letter to Xavier along the lines I suggested, to which I add that the SOP suspends its work pending a satisfactory response to that message. I will circulate the draft among you for your input

* When the letter is finalized, I will send it to Xavier, cc'ing Fadi, Chris and Mike

* We await a response and upon that, decide on further action

Alternatively: as above, but it is the ccNSO Council that sends the above letter to ICANN's CEO and Board.

What do you all think?

Cheers, Roelof

From: Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk] Sent: donderdag 12 september 2013 15:38 To: Roelof Meijer; 'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org' Cc: 'ccnso-council@icann.org' Subject: Re: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Hi,

I share the frustrations!

It is understandably a tempting option for us to resign/withdraw etc., but although that might result in some brief satisfaction, I do not feel that this would best serve the interests of the ccTLD community.

The SOP committee and the ccNSO have together gained a great reputation for feedback on ICANN's strategic and operational plans and strategies (or lack of them). We should not lightly throw away the opportunity to continue in this capacity. Although I imagine that news of withdrawal might make life easier for some of the people on the receiving end of our feedback, it would leave us without a clear route for ccNSO inputs in the future.

From my point of view, I think that we need to think both tactically and strategically about how to ensure that our inputs are not lightly brushed off or even ignored going forward.

One approach might be something similar to that we took at the ICANN, Nairobi meeting in response to the former ICANN CEO's initial comments regarding the security of the DNS to the GAC - Council and SOP members may recall that we reached a similar peak of frustration and we produced a ccNSO statement that was made public, supported by others etc, read out at various opportunities. This seemed to be very effective in gaining community and industry media attention and achieving our goals at that time.

Kind regards,

Lesley

Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK

Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley

From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: Thursday, 12 September 2013 11:44 To: "'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:'ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>'" <ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-sopcommittee@icann.org>> Cc: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-sopcommittee] FW: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear SOP members,

Please find below Xavier Calvez's email, introducing the revised Report of Public Comments on the Draft FY14 Ops Plan and Budget. For your convenience (it is not that easy to find), I attach ICANN's summary comments on the community's comments. Under reference #99 to #112, you will find ICANN's reaction to the comments the SOP submitted in June.

And a frustrating summary, it is. Two examples of what you will come across reading the document:

* 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..

It is quite clear to me that we as SOP WG spend more brainpower and time on our comments, than ICANN spends on its reaction. Faced with that conclusion, I cannot help wondering if there's any point in continuing to call on you all to spent that brainpower and time on future ICANN Ops Plans, Budgets and Strategic Plans.

I intend to send Xavier a message containing roughly the above, but would welcome your thoughts first.

Cheers, Roelof

PS: for your information, I also attach the approved FY14 Plan and Budget

From: community-finance-bounces@icann.org<mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANN-Controller Sent: donderdag 5 september 2013 18:35 To: Xavier J. Calvez; community-finance@icann.org<mailto:community-finance@icann.org>; jcurran@arin.net<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>; dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>; Maya S. Reynolds; pdiaz@pir.org<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>; Drazek, Keith; Adams, Michael D.; Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; chris@andalucia.com<mailto:chris@andalucia.com>; tonyarholmes@btinternet.com<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>; Elisa Cooper; Paul Wilson; Lynn Gravel; Byron Holland Cc: Susie Johnson; ICANN-Controller; Anjali Vaswani Subject: [community-finance] FY14 Draft Operating Plan & Budget - Report of Public Comments

Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders and ICANN Finance Community Members,

We are pleased to announce that the revised Report of Public Comment has been posted. This revision includes replies to comments received during the initial public comment period as well as the period during which the public comments were re-opened to allow for comments on the budget revisions presented in Durban. Please visit the following link to review the report.

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm

Regards, ICANN Finance Team controller@icann.org<mailto:controller@icann.org>