RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2
Hello All,
The GNSO Council and ICANN Board working dinner will be in 'FES 2' at 7:30 this evening.
I will endeavour to catch Paul or Vint today to get a feel of what they would find useful for the dinner.
From the discussions on Sunday it appears that the Council didn't want to focus on a single topic.
It would be useful for Council members to post to the list any issues that they think should be raised with the ICANN Board. Even if we don't have a single issue, I think we do need to be fairly focussed on a limited number of important issues. We should also avoid duplicating any discussions that may have been had with the Board in individual constituency meetings. I would like to recommend that we at least raise the issue of meeting planning again. Regards, Bruce
I support the need to address the concern of the risk that the present approach has for ICANN and participation.
From the BC perspective, our members need time to get approval for travel -- and usually, an international meeting will take a few weeks to get approval for unplanned international travel. The lack of a firm agenda limits the ability of the user oriented commercial constituencies to fully prepare and also to generate enthusiasm and ability to travel to these often remotely located meetings. I would suspect we are not alone.
Not being there in person, I'll give the BC proxy to Tony Holmes or others regarding this issue. HOWEVER, I think we need to address both the issue of programme planning, where we have asked for, and had a commitment to have a programme committee. Professional organizations have programme committees that work professionally, and with deadlines for getting topics and speakers agreed. A Programme Committee should include representations from all the SOs, and the ALAC; development of a programme is different than development of a meeting. And, so we need to address both the meeting planning aspect, and the development of a programme. As to the present approach now in place, I am sure that the ICANN staff would love to get away from "just in time" planning. I had suggested that the Programme Committee start to meet on the Thursday afternoons, while the Board is on retreat, or if not, then perhaps the day after.. but the point is that these meetings are a tremendous expense to both ICANN, the hosts, and to the attendees; given how important these sessions are to our work, and they are indeed a critical aspect of the community sharing information and benefiting from the workshops and the interaction, we would all benefit from a well developed programme. I would also like to raise the issue of a full commitment to funding for the Council's policy development activities, including the additional staff/experts needed, and the travel support needed. I don't see a firm commitment to the travel funding; and frankly, the face to face working sessions are much more effective than other models tried to date, especially on the more complex issues we are grappling with now. I have been developing a few ideas that I'll post to the Council members tomorrow. It is just a few thoughts I've been developing over a few weeks, as I've been studying the Operational Plan and Budget and thinking about what it portrays in terms of priorities. I see a lot of new staff in the Operational Plan and the budget but I am not sure that there is a sufficient focus on the policy development and support functions and how to strengthen it, rather than do work around to it. I think you had one other "big" item you wanted to do the update on, too, right, Bruce? Have a good dinner, all and I'll see you all Wednesday a.m. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:51 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2 Hello All,
The GNSO Council and ICANN Board working dinner will be in
'FES 2' at 7:30 this evening.
I will endeavour to catch Paul or Vint today to get a feel of what they would find useful for the dinner.
From the discussions on Sunday it appears that the Council didn't want
to focus on a single topic. It would be useful for Council members to post to the list any issues that they think should be raised with the ICANN Board. Even if we don't have a single issue, I think we do need to be fairly focussed on a limited number of important issues. We should also avoid duplicating any discussions that may have been had with the Board in individual constituency meetings. I would like to recommend that we at least raise the issue of meeting planning again. Regards, Bruce
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
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
participants (3)
-
Bret Fausett -
Bruce Tonkin -
Marilyn Cade