Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
<<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts ( <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted ( <http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report -25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted ( <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Yes Wolf. Staff is required to post a draft FY11 budget not later than 17 May so the goal is to recommend some amount of Whois study funds in the budget and decide later which studies to specifically fund. It is extremely unlikely that we could decide on which studies in time for the 17 May budget posting and that is even more difficult because we only have cost and feasibility estimates for two of the four studies. Chuck ________________________________ From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:40 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ <http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/> ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf> ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903 <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903> ) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf> ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
I think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks. You don't actually need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource profile. So I would expect something along the lines of: policy staff: 4.5 FTE Travel funds in addition to ICANN meetings: $x Funds for external studies: $y Then you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps: - issues report: x FTE - Initial report: y FTE - final report: z FTE You should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in parallel. Then what should those 3 be for the year becomes the question.... Right now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low thresholds to start something. The staff don't have the ability to say "no, can't fit that in this year". The ultimate result is staff are spread too thin. Of course the same applies to the volunteer resources. Each stakeholder group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours on this sort of work. I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to guide and draft text. So the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many activities the GNSO can do well. Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make much progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at once. I look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their model. Chuck - further comments below. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. [AK] Agreed The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. [AK] That is exactly my point! If we don't have the resources perhaps we should re-evaluate our prioritisation! This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. [AK] That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and how much each task/ project will impact it? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf> ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Excellent points Adrian. Your suggestions would make good input to the operating plan and budget process. I also think it would be good for you to pursue your ideas further with David Olive. And finally, what you are talking about would be a good start to what needs to happen once we do the prioritization exercise; the prioritization DT developed a methodology for prioritizing projects but that is not the end because we then need to figure out how we apply the priorities in our everyday policy work. It seems to me that what you are saying is an integral part of developing a way for the Council to manage the process. David - What are your thoughts? Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 I think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks. You don't actually need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource profile. So I would expect something along the lines of: policy staff: 4.5 FTE Travel funds in addition to ICANN meetings: $x Funds for external studies: $y Then you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps: - issues report: x FTE - Initial report: y FTE - final report: z FTE You should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in parallel. Then what should those 3 be for the year becomes the question.... Right now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low thresholds to start something. The staff don't have the ability to say "no, can't fit that in this year". The ultimate result is staff are spread too thin. Of course the same applies to the volunteer resources. Each stakeholder group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours on this sort of work. I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to guide and draft text. So the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many activities the GNSO can do well. Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make much progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at once. I look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their model. Chuck - further comments below. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. [AK] Agreed The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. [AK] That is exactly my point! If we don't have the resources perhaps we should re-evaluate our prioritisation! This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. [AK] That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and how much each task/ project will impact it? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Good start of discussing real council management issues! Once we've reached a more common understanding (and consensus) of the prioritization to be undertaken we should immediately refer to Doug Brent and Kevin Wilson to discuss how operating and budget plan could fit into GNSO prioritization and vice versa. I understood from a side discussion that they are keen on getting council input. I sympathize with Adrian's structured approach as basis for a ressource management model between GNSO and ICANN and like to suggest working on this in the near future. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 15:30 An: Adrian Kinderis; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Excellent points Adrian. Your suggestions would make good input to the operating plan and budget process. I also think it would be good for you to pursue your ideas further with David Olive. And finally, what you are talking about would be a good start to what needs to happen once we do the prioritization exercise; the prioritization DT developed a methodology for prioritizing projects but that is not the end because we then need to figure out how we apply the priorities in our everyday policy work. It seems to me that what you are saying is an integral part of developing a way for the Council to manage the process. David - What are your thoughts? Chuck _____ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 I think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks. You don't actually need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource profile. So I would expect something along the lines of: policy staff: 4.5 FTE Travel funds in addition to ICANN meetings: $x Funds for external studies: $y Then you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps: - issues report: x FTE - Initial report: y FTE - final report: z FTE You should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in parallel. Then what should those 3 be for the year becomes the question.... Right now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low thresholds to start something. The staff don't have the ability to say "no, can't fit that in this year". The ultimate result is staff are spread too thin. Of course the same applies to the volunteer resources. Each stakeholder group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours on this sort of work. I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to guide and draft text. So the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many activities the GNSO can do well. Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make much progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at once. I look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their model. Chuck - further comments below. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck _____ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. [AK] Agreed The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. [AK] That is exactly my point! If we don't have the resources perhaps we should re-evaluate our prioritisation! This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. [AK] That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and how much each task/ project will impact it? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-repor t-25feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee.
Chuck and Adrian: I agree with both your assessments that we are going to need quantifications of resource constraints and capacities if the Council is to manage the overall GNSO workload responsibly and effectively. The Work Prioritization Drafting Team recognized this important factor in its transmittal email forwarded to the Council by Olga Cavalli (9 April 2010). In particular I would highlight: “The DT believes that prioritization is an important first step of the Council’s broader project management role, which should be further defined and will require appropriate tools to assist in the active and effective management of the workload. To facilitate these managerial responsibilities, the DT recommends that: 1) a process be developed to allow timely tracking of GNSO projects on an on-going basis; and 2) its process be supported with a web-based software toolkit (e.g. excellent open source applications are available) that will assign Staff and Community resources to projects/tasks and offer time/milestone tracking plus advanced collaboration capabilities allowing work to be managed efficiently, effectively, and transparently. “ While I agree that rough FTE type calculations may provide some useful guidance in the near term, I the GNSO should have available a process such as highlighted in Olga’s two bullet points. I am hoping that the Council will accept the WPM-DT’s recommendation and commission a team, working with my Staff, to define appropriate program/project management disciplines along with an integrated suite of tools designed to provide both the Council and ICANN management with the data and facts needed for both resource capacity planning (Community and Staff) as well as real-time decision-making. I welcome and look forward to your involvement and others in these discussions. David Olive On 4/20/10 9:30 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Excellent points Adrian. Your suggestions would make good input to the operating plan and budget process. I also think it would be good for you to pursue your ideas further with David Olive. And finally, what you are talking about would be a good start to what needs to happen once we do the prioritization exercise; the prioritization DT developed a methodology for prioritizing projects but that is not the end because we then need to figure out how we apply the priorities in our everyday policy work. It seems to me that what you are saying is an integral part of developing a way for the Council to manage the process. David - What are your thoughts? Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 7:59 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 I think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks. You don't actually need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource profile. So I would expect something along the lines of: policy staff: 4.5 FTE Travel funds in addition to ICANN meetings: $x Funds for external studies: $y Then you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps: - issues report: x FTE - Initial report: y FTE - final report: z FTE You should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in parallel. Then what should those 3 be for the year becomes the question.... Right now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low thresholds to start something. The staff don't have the ability to say “no, can't fit that in this year”. The ultimate result is staff are spread too thin. Of course the same applies to the volunteer resources. Each stakeholder group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours on this sort of work. I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to guide and draft text. So the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many activities the GNSO can do well. Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make much progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at once. I look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their model. Chuck – further comments below. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Adrian, Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 7:42 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wolf et al, What concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that there is no budget associated with the policy development*. [Gomes, Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although it is not separated as a policy development budget per se. It would be helpful if it was. [AK] Agreed The Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time that is budgeted to support prioritised work. [Gomes, Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't think they are needed to do the initial prioritization. They would become quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of our work. [AK] That is exactly my point! If we don’t have the resources perhaps we should re-evaluate our prioritisation! This seems upside down or back-to-front or something. How can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important areas of work? [Gomes, Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the Studies work would be outsourced. Obviously Staff has to arrange for that and manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian? I assume the Whois Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part of our prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are funds to do some studies. [AK] That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and how much each task/ project will impact it? *On a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and clearly that there is not. [Gomes, Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are lots of funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit from those funds everyday. But, as noted above, to date they have not been reported as a separate and inclusive budget category. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40 AM To: cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Chuck is this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? Which is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the number and kind of studies to be funded? I suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy complex. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010 22:37 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Wichtigkeit: Hoch <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25f... ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development ICANN Office: 310.578.8617 Cell: 202.341.3611
participants (4)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
David Olive -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de