FW: Budget Information
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
Hi, First, I must apologise for the very tardy response to this on my part. When I first signed up to work for this, I did so knowing I’m already extremely busy (have a deadline in a couple of weeks that’s keeping my very occupied). I had first volunteered to help Volker with this task, but had no intention of leading it. Now we only have a couple of days to get this done. Lars, thank you very much for the document. David Olive’s summary on the last Council meeting was also very helpful. I have to say that I would have found it impossible to extract this information from the FY16 draft operating plan and budget. I have a two questions: 1. You indicated that there are 8 full-time staff members assigned to the GNSO. This includes 3 staff members who support other SOs/ACs, as well as others who supplement the GNSO’s work when/if needed. The FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates that there is a plan to hire 16 new staff members in FY16. Are any of those meant to support the GNSO’s work, or processes that may contribute to increased duties of staff who support the GNSO? I’m thinking post-EWG PDP, a possible review of the PICS within FY16, any work associated with the next round of new gTLDs, a possible effort to define the “public interest” within the ICANN context as part of ICANN’s strategic plan (Section 4.5 of the draft budget and operating plan), etc… In addition, staff support will also continue to be needed on Council activities like the one mentioned on item 4.2.1 (slide 53) to increase participation of the GAC in GNSO activities. This initiative is still in its very early stages, and will require more work and follow up. These all strike me as examples where more staff support will be required over the next year, and possibly beyond. As a member of the Council responsible for managing GNSO processes, I’d like to know if staff has the support it needs to do the work the community is asking it to do. This doesn’t seem to be the case right now, and although I can raise the concern, I am admittedly not in a position to give a very informed assertion to that effect. 2. Slide 40 of the FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates the intent to improve the current WHOIS policy, and in doing so, making it consistent with applicable data protection and privacy laws. What, if any, part of the draft budget is allocated to bringing in the required expertise to provide answers to questions on conflicts between WHOIS policies and legal jurisdictions with stricter privacy and data protection laws. This is a question that the GNSO has failed to answer on more than one occasion. That’s all I have for now. My instinct is telling me that with the epic delay in delivering on this, we should probably move this discussion to the Council list asap. We should think about how to do that. Thanks, and apologies once again. Amr On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:58 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
Hi Amr, Thank you for your note. Let me try and answer as best as I can. On the staffing numbers: Page 9 of the Budget Plan FY16 you can see that the Policy Staff number for FY 15 is 25.3 on average. This is because some staff have been hired throughout the year. As far as I am aware, the current total number of policy staff is 27 - which is also the number for FY16, meaning that, as far as I understand, from now until the end of FY 16 no additional policy staff are budgeted for. And of the 27 it’s eight staff positions, five of which are full time. (See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy16-18m ar15-en.pdf). Please note that contractors are not part of this staff count. I am not sure there is such a thing as a separate contractor budget, but they money for contractors will come essentially from the existing departmental funds. Currently, there is one full time contractor supporting the GNSO. In addition, others from the Policy department do of course help with some of the GNSO work. So there is some overlap of the 27 full time staff if/when necessary. — Items 4.2.1 is also not part of the Policy budget. This is money for the Global Stakeholder Engagement department. — Similarly, 2.2 is not money allocated to the policy department. As far as I can tell, it is the IANA department but I will have to double check with the finance department to be sure. Would you like me to do that? I hope this helps a little, please let me know if you need any further assistance at this stage. Very best. Lars On 28/04/2015 13:04, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
First, I must apologise for the very tardy response to this on my part. When I first signed up to work for this, I did so knowing I’m already extremely busy (have a deadline in a couple of weeks that’s keeping my very occupied). I had first volunteered to help Volker with this task, but had no intention of leading it. Now we only have a couple of days to get this done.
Lars, thank you very much for the document. David Olive’s summary on the last Council meeting was also very helpful. I have to say that I would have found it impossible to extract this information from the FY16 draft operating plan and budget.
I have a two questions:
1. You indicated that there are 8 full-time staff members assigned to the GNSO. This includes 3 staff members who support other SOs/ACs, as well as others who supplement the GNSO’s work when/if needed. The FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates that there is a plan to hire 16 new staff members in FY16. Are any of those meant to support the GNSO’s work, or processes that may contribute to increased duties of staff who support the GNSO? I’m thinking post-EWG PDP, a possible review of the PICS within FY16, any work associated with the next round of new gTLDs, a possible effort to define the “public interest” within the ICANN context as part of ICANN’s strategic plan (Section 4.5 of the draft budget and operating plan), etc…
In addition, staff support will also continue to be needed on Council activities like the one mentioned on item 4.2.1 (slide 53) to increase participation of the GAC in GNSO activities. This initiative is still in its very early stages, and will require more work and follow up.
These all strike me as examples where more staff support will be required over the next year, and possibly beyond. As a member of the Council responsible for managing GNSO processes, I’d like to know if staff has the support it needs to do the work the community is asking it to do. This doesn’t seem to be the case right now, and although I can raise the concern, I am admittedly not in a position to give a very informed assertion to that effect.
2. Slide 40 of the FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates the intent to improve the current WHOIS policy, and in doing so, making it consistent with applicable data protection and privacy laws. What, if any, part of the draft budget is allocated to bringing in the required expertise to provide answers to questions on conflicts between WHOIS policies and legal jurisdictions with stricter privacy and data protection laws. This is a question that the GNSO has failed to answer on more than one occasion.
That’s all I have for now. My instinct is telling me that with the epic delay in delivering on this, we should probably move this discussion to the Council list asap. We should think about how to do that.
Thanks, and apologies once again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:58 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
Please Lars confirm the unit of value and definitions of the following headings out of the big spreadsheet in pdf format FTE Pers T&M Prof Svcs Admin Capital Total Txs 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 28, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Thank you for your note. Let me try and answer as best as I can.
On the staffing numbers: Page 9 of the Budget Plan FY16 you can see that the Policy Staff number for FY 15 is 25.3 on average. This is because some staff have been hired throughout the year. As far as I am aware, the current total number of policy staff is 27 - which is also the number for FY16, meaning that, as far as I understand, from now until the end of FY 16 no additional policy staff are budgeted for. And of the 27 it’s eight staff positions, five of which are full time. (See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy16-18m ar15-en.pdf).
Please note that contractors are not part of this staff count. I am not sure there is such a thing as a separate contractor budget, but they money for contractors will come essentially from the existing departmental funds. Currently, there is one full time contractor supporting the GNSO.
In addition, others from the Policy department do of course help with some of the GNSO work. So there is some overlap of the 27 full time staff if/when necessary.
— Items 4.2.1 is also not part of the Policy budget. This is money for the Global Stakeholder Engagement department.
— Similarly, 2.2 is not money allocated to the policy department. As far as I can tell, it is the IANA department but I will have to double check with the finance department to be sure. Would you like me to do that?
I hope this helps a little, please let me know if you need any further assistance at this stage. Very best. Lars
On 28/04/2015 13:04, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
First, I must apologise for the very tardy response to this on my part. When I first signed up to work for this, I did so knowing I’m already extremely busy (have a deadline in a couple of weeks that’s keeping my very occupied). I had first volunteered to help Volker with this task, but had no intention of leading it. Now we only have a couple of days to get this done.
Lars, thank you very much for the document. David Olive’s summary on the last Council meeting was also very helpful. I have to say that I would have found it impossible to extract this information from the FY16 draft operating plan and budget.
I have a two questions:
1. You indicated that there are 8 full-time staff members assigned to the GNSO. This includes 3 staff members who support other SOs/ACs, as well as others who supplement the GNSO’s work when/if needed. The FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates that there is a plan to hire 16 new staff members in FY16. Are any of those meant to support the GNSO’s work, or processes that may contribute to increased duties of staff who support the GNSO? I’m thinking post-EWG PDP, a possible review of the PICS within FY16, any work associated with the next round of new gTLDs, a possible effort to define the “public interest” within the ICANN context as part of ICANN’s strategic plan (Section 4.5 of the draft budget and operating plan), etc…
In addition, staff support will also continue to be needed on Council activities like the one mentioned on item 4.2.1 (slide 53) to increase participation of the GAC in GNSO activities. This initiative is still in its very early stages, and will require more work and follow up.
These all strike me as examples where more staff support will be required over the next year, and possibly beyond. As a member of the Council responsible for managing GNSO processes, I’d like to know if staff has the support it needs to do the work the community is asking it to do. This doesn’t seem to be the case right now, and although I can raise the concern, I am admittedly not in a position to give a very informed assertion to that effect.
2. Slide 40 of the FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates the intent to improve the current WHOIS policy, and in doing so, making it consistent with applicable data protection and privacy laws. What, if any, part of the draft budget is allocated to bringing in the required expertise to provide answers to questions on conflicts between WHOIS policies and legal jurisdictions with stricter privacy and data protection laws. This is a question that the GNSO has failed to answer on more than one occasion.
That’s all I have for now. My instinct is telling me that with the epic delay in delivering on this, we should probably move this discussion to the Council list asap. We should think about how to do that.
Thanks, and apologies once again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:58 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
Hi Carlos - Thank you for the note. All figures are in million US Dollars. The Headings are: FTE: Ful-time equivalent, i.e. head count of full time personal. 1 FTE means that there could be 2 people working at half time, or 4 peple working at quarter time, or one person at full time. Pers: Personell Cost T&M: travel and meetings Prof Serv: Professional Services (contractors) Admin: Administrative Costs Capital: capital expenditure (according to wikipedia: A capital expenditure is incurred when a business spends money either to buy fixed assets or to add to the value of an existing fixed asset with a useful life extending beyond the taxable year.) Total: total funds allocated to that row. Best wishes Lars From: "Carlos Raúl Gutierrez (carlosraulg@gmail.com)" <carlosraulg@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:28 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "gnso-budgetreview@icann.org" <gnso-budgetreview@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-budgetreview] Budget Information Please Lars confirm the unit of value and definitions of the following headings out of the big spreadsheet in pdf format FTE Pers T&M Prof Svcs Admin Capital Total Txs 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 28, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Amr, Thank you for your note. Let me try and answer as best as I can.
On the staffing numbers: Page 9 of the Budget Plan FY16 you can see that the Policy Staff number for FY 15 is 25.3 on average. This is because some staff have been hired throughout the year. As far as I am aware, the current total number of policy staff is 27 - which is also the number for FY16, meaning that, as far as I understand, from now until the end of FY 16 no additional policy staff are budgeted for. And of the 27 it’s eight staff positions, five of which are full time. (See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy16-18m ar15-en.pdf).
Please note that contractors are not part of this staff count. I am not sure there is such a thing as a separate contractor budget, but they money for contractors will come essentially from the existing departmental funds. Currently, there is one full time contractor supporting the GNSO.
In addition, others from the Policy department do of course help with some of the GNSO work. So there is some overlap of the 27 full time staff if/when necessary.
— Items 4.2.1 is also not part of the Policy budget. This is money for the Global Stakeholder Engagement department.
— Similarly, 2.2 is not money allocated to the policy department. As far as I can tell, it is the IANA department but I will have to double check with the finance department to be sure. Would you like me to do that?
I hope this helps a little, please let me know if you need any further assistance at this stage. Very best. Lars
On 28/04/2015 13:04, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
First, I must apologise for the very tardy response to this on my part. When I first signed up to work for this, I did so knowing I’m already extremely busy (have a deadline in a couple of weeks that’s keeping my very occupied). I had first volunteered to help Volker with this task, but had no intention of leading it. Now we only have a couple of days to get this done.
Lars, thank you very much for the document. David Olive’s summary on the last Council meeting was also very helpful. I have to say that I would have found it impossible to extract this information from the FY16 draft operating plan and budget.
I have a two questions:
1. You indicated that there are 8 full-time staff members assigned to the GNSO. This includes 3 staff members who support other SOs/ACs, as well as others who supplement the GNSO’s work when/if needed. The FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates that there is a plan to hire 16 new staff members in FY16. Are any of those meant to support the GNSO’s work, or processes that may contribute to increased duties of staff who support the GNSO? I’m thinking post-EWG PDP, a possible review of the PICS within FY16, any work associated with the next round of new gTLDs, a possible effort to define the “public interest” within the ICANN context as part of ICANN’s strategic plan (Section 4.5 of the draft budget and operating plan), etc…
In addition, staff support will also continue to be needed on Council activities like the one mentioned on item 4.2.1 (slide 53) to increase participation of the GAC in GNSO activities. This initiative is still in its very early stages, and will require more work and follow up.
These all strike me as examples where more staff support will be required over the next year, and possibly beyond. As a member of the Council responsible for managing GNSO processes, I’d like to know if staff has the support it needs to do the work the community is asking it to do. This doesn’t seem to be the case right now, and although I can raise the concern, I am admittedly not in a position to give a very informed assertion to that effect.
2. Slide 40 of the FY16 draft budget and operating plan indicates the intent to improve the current WHOIS policy, and in doing so, making it consistent with applicable data protection and privacy laws. What, if any, part of the draft budget is allocated to bringing in the required expertise to provide answers to questions on conflicts between WHOIS policies and legal jurisdictions with stricter privacy and data protection laws. This is a question that the GNSO has failed to answer on more than one occasion.
That’s all I have for now. My instinct is telling me that with the epic delay in delivering on this, we should probably move this discussion to the Council list asap. We should think about how to do that.
Thanks, and apologies once again.
Amr
On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:58 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
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 <mailto: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
Lars was friendly and efficient enough to provide the real numbers in a spreadsheet. Thanks Lars. Here is a better view of the real numbers under a few personal assumptions. 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 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> wrote:
Sent on behalf of Lars Hoffmann
On 24/04/2015 18:28, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.icann.org/>
lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> | +32 491 507680
<Budget Background Information.doc>_______________________________________________ gnso-budgetreview mailing list gnso-budgetreview@icann.org <mailto:gnso-budgetreview@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-budgetreview
participants (4)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Lars Hoffmann