Thanks, Bret. I should have mentioned similar concerns about the Operational Plan and the Budget. Both are filled with assumptions that have not been vetted with the affected bodies well enough. I'm not criticizing the staff but would ask that the vetting process be improved. Asking for people to attend computer generated sessions at ICANN face to face meetings where there is no accountability for the brainstorm input does not reflect a good process for StratPlan input. I think that the staff need to actually meet with, even by phone, the constituencies and the RIRs, etc. there has been some high level contact but we, as constituencies, aren't probably being insistent enough on input. There is too much reliance on the contracted parties, with a failure to understand and reflect that without the balance of the users participation, ICANN's legitimacy is significantly challenged. I'm a fan of having a sufficient budget to fulfill ICANN's mission; but I share Bret's concerns as articulated here. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:03 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2
It would be useful for Council members to post to the list any issues that they think should be raised with the ICANN Board.
I don't know if it's been raised separately, but I am concerned with the budget growth and the planning process that has created this growth. The current budget process is to start with a set of goals ("strategic planning"), figure out how to implement those goals ("operational planning") and then attach dollars to them ("budget planning"). This is backwards. Other entities start with a budget and then fit the goals into the available revenue. If they can't accomplish all of their goals, they have to prioritize those goals ito fit within the budget. (I also think that the community would focus more on what is really important for ICANN if it was forced to work within a certain budget.) Another problem with the budget growth is that it is too fast. Here's the budget arc: 1999...........$5,900,000 2000...........$5,024,000 2001...........$6,030,000 2002...........$6,015,000 2003...........$8,255,000 2004..........$15,830,000 2005..........$22,988,000 2006..........$30,977,000 (proposed) The number of staff members and offices also have grown during this time along a similar arc. Most organizations in a single office cannot absorb this sort of explosive growth, so you have to wonder how an organization as geographically disperse as ICANN can do it. We should support measured growth, 5-10% per year, but not a process that sees the budget double every two years. If the budget issues have not been raised with the Board, please raise them. Bret