FYI, the staff report of public comments in relation to ICANN’s draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget has been published (see below). To facilitate your review of the responses to the Council input received, you will find the relevant excerpts right hereunder. Best regards, Marika GNSO Council Comment #1: the GNSO Council notes that many of our comments filed in response to the Draft FY17 Operating Plan and Budget were not adopted in the Final budget, and that some of these concerns persist in the Draft FY18 budget. This raises broader questions about how ICANN reviews comments received and, if appropriate, responds to the commenter or amends the draft budget. Given the greater involvement of the Empowered Community in the review of FY18 and future budgets, we reiterate our call for greater transparency in the process of finalizing the draft budget. In particular, ICANN should consider publishing a detailed analysis of comments received, along with a rationale for those not incorporated in to the Final Budget. Response: Staff agrees that providing more information in the published documents might enhance transparency and accountability to the public interest as well as enable the community to perform its new responsibilities under the new Bylaws. Following the conclusion of the public comment period, ICANN held calls with the community to improve its understanding of the comments received. These calls helped ICANN develop better responses and identify changes to make to the draft plans. The Response to Public Comment report provides a detailed analysis of comments received, along with a rationale for those not incorporated in to the Final Budget. ICANN uses the comments and other feedback provided on its draft planning documents each year to identify areas of strength and areas that could be enhanced. These are used to identify specific changes to the next year’s planning process. In the past 3 years, ICANN has organized the public comment responses by associated a response with every comment submitted. While the responses all attempt to address the comments, the responses may do so by providing additional information as requested, or providing indications of future plans that address the comments received, or providing the rationale as to why a recommended action is not taken. GNSO Council Comment #2: In regards to the chart displayed on page 10 of the draft FY18 budget showing expenses of FY17 Forecast and FY18 Draft Budget by Function, it might be helpful to also provide a second chart that summarizes the current fiscal year forecast and following fiscal year draft budget at the Goal level (on a page 11) and if possible by the Portfolio further down in the draft budget where the portfolios are detailed by Goal. Response: We understand that it may be helpful to have the FY17 Forecast and FY18 Draft Budget at the Goal level and by Portfolio. We publish the FY18 Draft Budget by Project, Goal level and Portfolio. Staff will consider incorporating this change in future Operating Plan and Budget documents. GNSO Council Comment #3: Projected growth in resources allocated for global engagement, ranked third largest by function, continues to raise questions about the value proposition of these expenditures. If ICANN measures the success of this initiative in terms of “...show(ing) a balanced and regional approach to global engagement” and “stakeholder participation2 in ICANN by region,” then we request that Staff provide details demonstrating that progress towards these goals is justified by the continued spend (funding and FTE headcount). For example, are the large quantity of regional stakeholder engagement events and sponsorships at internet related functions still required? And if so, what tangible and meaningful outcomes are derived other than just measuring the quantity of those events as it pertains to ICANN’s mission such as policy development around the generic names space? Response: Funding for Global Stakeholder Engagement did not increase in FY18 but was reduced. Headcount within GSE was reduced due to transfer of positions to other ICANN functions. Following the review of our service delivery metrics from our mapping exercises in FY17, and gauging needs from ICANN’s regions, GSE had requested additional positions for FY18 to support technical engagement in EMEA, a position in Istanbul to support local stakeholder engagement, and administrative support in the Nairobi and Montevideo offices. GSE has analyzed the delivery of services from ICANN offices and regions to the community, and conducted a mapping exercise to identify gaps in participation from stakeholder groups in ICANN policy work. The GSE regional team is focused on publishing the tangible and meaningful outcomes of its work. A key aspect of engagement at ICANN is that GSE’s work is largely demand-driven by requests from stakeholder groups in the regions. Regional Organizations request ICANN to participate in engagement events, such as regional and national Internet Governance Forum events, cross-sector initiatives such as Smart Africa and others. The current goal around measurement in FY18 is to measure this demand, the impacts of our efforts, and continuing to measure the Stakeholder Journey both as it exists today, and how it may exist in the future. GNSO Council Comment #4: The GNSO Council notes with concern that the FYI18 budget, as in prior years, places a lower priority on resources supporting Policy Development versus other initiatives and programs. In this context, priority is measured by total budget allocation, YoY growth projections, and FTE headcount. We reiterate our position from last year that supporting policy development and the technical coordination of the Domain Name System are enumerated in ICANN’s Mission and Bylaws.3 The GNSO Council believes that scarcity of Policy Staff and other resources are a challenge to its ability to meet its objectives. And that as an organization, ICANN is particularly vulnerable to Staff turnover and the loss of institutional knowledge in this area. Response: Staffing for the GNSO community is planned to continue at generally previous levels for FY18 with a couple of professional service positions converting to full time staff. ICANN senior staff work with the Executive and HR teams to engage in succession planning efforts, staff retention and resourcing not only within the Policy Development Support Team but across all ICANN departments. ICANN Organization is mindful of the critical core Organizational work supported by the Policy Development Support Team. When necessary the Policy Development Support Team has the ability to bring on professional support services to supplement full time staff on issues of particular expertise that are needed by PDP and other working groups.See also Ref# 96 below. GNSO Council Comment #5: FY18 Projections for new gTLD transaction fees (sec. 3.2 “Funding”) show a best estimate of approximately 30% growth in funding derived from transaction fees associated with registrations in new gTLDs. Given that this level of growth is also established as the “low estimate,” we strongly encourage ICANN Finance staff to consult with GNSO contracted parties (and in particular, gTLD registry operators) to ensure that this assumption is supported by their growth projections for the corresponding time frame. Response: Many factors are considered in the projection of transaction volumes and resulting fees, including trends from historical data, recent marketplace developments, and input from industry participants (provided both directly and via public statements/documents). ICANN evaluates and utilizes those various perspectives in developing estimates on future funding. In addition, the assumptions used for the low/best/high estimates were presented and discussed during the budget ad hoc working group meetings held in Hyderabad and Copenhagen. From: <soac-leaders-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Olive <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 18:39 To: "soac-leaders@icann.org" <soac-leaders@icann.org> Subject: [SOAC-Leaders] ICANN News Alert -- Staff Report of Public Comments Published - ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget [CANN][icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFAg...> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2017-06-02-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_announcement-2D3-2D2017-2D06-2D02-2Den&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=TbLX1s7xCH2cufWHog_CG-nVYVsxKdTF4m6y9SG62NI&s=0bJrCQ79HHQQUDZtjw3sUJDbFKo9QET_QantYgzk9kI&e=> ________________________________ Staff Report of Public Comments Published - ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget 2 June 2017 On 2 June 2017, ICANN published the Staff Report of Public Comments on ICANN's Draft FY18 Operating Plan and Budget, and an associated update to the Five-Year Operating Plan. These documents were available for community feedback during a public comment period from 8 March 2017 to 28 April 2017. The documents will be revised to incorporate necessary changes as indicated in the staff report, and will be posted to the public comment page within the next couple weeks. ICANN recognizes and thanks all stakeholders who contributed to the submission of comments during this public comment period. Community and public participation in the planning and budget process of ICANN is a keystone of ICANN's multistakeholder model. ICANN will seek adoption of the proposed FY18 Operating Plan and Budget and updated Five-Year Operating Plan at a board meeting during ICANN 59 in Johannesburg.