On Apr 28, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <carlosraulg@gmail.com> wrote:

FY16 Budget

Dear Councillors

The good news is that we are really cheap to support!

It is difficult to analyse numbers out of pdf, instead of spreadsheets. 

But let me I’ve you an overview of what I see in the first look since Staff has not been able to access the data in spreadsheet format for the time being.


ICANNs Operating Expenses have increased by almost 12% from FY15 (from 101 to 113 million, excluding non recurring items)

Half of the increase ($6 million) is related to hiring in FY15 and FY16, Nevertheless form the documents the increase for SO/AC support staff is not obvious

Out of this overall figure, only one single line can be directly attributed to Policy, as you can see in section 1.1 of the presentation: SO/AC Policy & Engagement with and amount of $10.6 million

This line has increased by almost 28% from FY15 (from 8,3 to 10,6 million)

Still, it represent only 9,4% of the total Operation Expense Budgeted for FY 16 (vs. 8,2% in FY15)

Then we can go to the second document, that has no reference to the FY15 numbers, which was the original question in the Council.

If we go to the objective #1 (Future Globalized ICANN) and look under GOAL 3 Evolve and further globalise ICANN we find a similar figure, but not exactly the same one as per above of $10.9 million, but at least somewhat higher….

Out of this $10.9 million dedicated to SO/ACs, only $ 6.5 million can be directly attributed to specific support for SO/ACs (i.e. 5.8%), the rest being distributed mainly over the year for supporting all SO/AC to participate in the 3 yearly meetings meetings for a total of $4.5 million. Yes f2f meetings are expensive. 

Out of the 5.8% of operating expenses dedicated to support all SO/ACs, I would consider that $1.5 million are Overhead for all SO/ACs (Budget lines 31481-31485, including Effectiveness Program, Budget managing, Communications and General Management)

So we are left with $5.0 million for direct support of all SO/ACs, of which the GNSO gets directly assigned  the Lions share, with $1.3 million, or, in percentage a full percentage point of ICANNs operating expenses!!!! 1,15% to be exact, without the travel support lines of course.

Now drilling further down, the $1,3 million are spread between a global charge of $0,5 million for Policy Development Support (Budget line 31429), and then unevenly distributed charges of $100,000 some, and $0 the others for a total of 12 projects (both pep, non-pdp) Not sure if this list covers all policy development lines presently liste in the GNSO web page, but without a spreadsheet, it is quite difficult to make the comparison. The level of summarisation does not allow to go deeper into the actual cost of policy development.

My personal take is what many of us would have assumed even before seeing the numbers, that Policy Development in ICANN is almost a 100% voluntary activity by "the Community", supported by a great, professional and dedicated staff, but pretty small in numbers and costs to the Organisation. And independently of the amounts involved, it is also my very personal view, that in the same spirit of internal checks and balances, and as it has been suggested the IANA functions should become a separate division, Policy Development (independently if it is bundled together with all SO/ACs or not) deserves a better organisational and structural separation, including the budgeting process, in the same lines Senators Thune and Rubio have already suggested. 

Just looking at the number once a year is not enough and with such marginal amounts, I doubt it is of great value to further make a FY15 vs FY16 comparison at this stage.

Cheers

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: carlosraulg@gmail.com

Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> wrote:

Sent on behalf of Lars Hoffmann


On 24/04/2015 18:28, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

As the 1 May deadline for public comments to the draft FY16 Budget is
approaching, I hope you don't mind me reaching out again. You might recall
that Jonathan Robinson had suggested to complete a document today to sent
to the GNSO list so that the Council can discuss on list before 1 May. Of
course, this is a very busy time- and so to facilitate your work, staff
has looked at the FY16 budget and extracted a few items that, for the
purpose of providing comment on the FY16 proposal, could be relevant to
the GNSO Council. A summary document is attached. This is thought as a
starting point for your discussion and might potential serve as the basis
for a document to be then circulated to the whole Council.

Please let me know if there is anything else you might need at this point,
such as organising a call for you early next week.


Many thanks and very best wishes,
Lars

PS: Please note that figures appearing in this document are taken directly
from the proposed FY 16 Budget plan that is open for public comment. Links
to allrelevant documents are included in the attachment.





On 20/04/2015 15:57, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

I just wanted to let you know that in case you need any help/assistance
in
your work, I would be very happy to assist where I can. As a start, I
could try and get someone from the Finance Department involved so we have
a contact person for possible questions, as per Carlos¹ suggestion.
Setting up calls and doing some of the initial drafting would also be a
possibility. 

Very best wishes,
Lars




---
Lars Hoffmann
Policy Specialist

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
6 Rond Point Schuman | 1040 Brussels, Belgium | www.icann.org


lars.hoffmann@icann.org | +32 491 507680

<Budget Background Information.doc>_______________________________________________
gnso-budgetreview mailing list
gnso-budgetreview@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview