Dear ISPCP Colleagues
Below is an amended draft response to the proposed ICANN budget. The
amendments represent the changes that were discussed when the draft
statement was presented at the Constituency meeting in KL earlier this
week. If the Constituency is going to respond its essential we do so
quickly. On that basis could I ask you to raise any concerns within the
next 24 hours so that this statement can be passed to the Board prior to
their meeting this Friday.
Thank You
Regards
Tony
-----------------------------------------
ISPCP response on the ICANN BUDGET Proposal 2004-2005
The proposed budget represents a crucial milestone for ICANN. Our
constituency believes that budget priorities for 2004-2005 is an
important step beyond the evolution and reform of recent years. This
budget represents a first opportunity to implement the foundation of a
new ICANN: one firmly in support of those who provide services on the
Internet, use the Internet, and those who make the Internet possible.
The ISPCP suggests that at the earliest possible moment ICANN must
publish a comprehensive strategic plan that provides the vision for the
organisation. Only then will the budget truly become a way to implement
ICANN goals. Our constituency believes that although well intentioned
the current budget is less of a strategic document and more of a
response to a series of individual requests and concerns from various
constituencies that ICANN serves. We would suggest that in this budget
cycle there is a need to adopt a more focused strategic approach, rather
than limit ICANN to a series of tactical responses to individual issues
and requests.
Most importantly, we believe that some prioritisation of the
requirements of constituents must be clearly set out. ICANN is not in a
position to meet every demand its constituencies would like within the
2004-2005 period. It is proposed that a strategic approach to planning
and prioritisation of services should take place immediately after the
Kuala Lumpur meeting. This should be underpinned with set goals and
milestones against which performance can be judged. Without such an
approach that facilitates measurable performance, the acceptance of
subsequent budget proposals will undoubtedly prove even more
challenging.
One particular concern our Constituency would like to raise is over the
percentage of the organisation budget that relates to legal services and
defences. Litigation has already limited ICANNs ability to make good on
strategic themes and services. Recognising that some of this is not
within ICANNs control, we still hold the view the Organisation is overly
restricted by the size of its legal budget.
The ISPCP would also like to make a suggestion regarding the IANA
budget. We believe that IANA is a foundation stone of ICANN and the
Internet. What we would like to see is a segregated funding model for
IANA where the organisation was funded solely by its immediate
constituents. We think the doubling of IANA expenditures and staff is
not in keeping with the level of additional support that other parts of
ICANN receive. We have no doubt that IANA constituents feel strongly
about the quality, timeliness and service of this crucial organisation.
However one way to ensure that IANA is purely customer focused is to let
the IANAs constituents and customers help plan for IANA activities and
help fund their priorities. We believe that this should be segregated
from the rest of ICANNs overall budget.
It is also our view that a fresh approach to public policy development
must be implemented. It is essential that the budget must adequately and
wholly fund significant staff resources for the development of naming
and addressing policy. We believe that staff roles in the policy
development process need to be reformulated from a convenor/mediator
role to an innovator/analytical/developer role. The budget should
support this evolution and ensure that significant staff resources,
training and travel support are available to those who perform this
crucial task.
The current budget makes a well-intentioned effort to achieve
geographical dispersal of staff and offices. We do not believe this
should be a significant priority of the organisation at this stage. The
organisation, in absence of an articulated vision and strategy, should
concentrate on the consolidation of services provided to constituents,
development of relevant policy for those constituents, and co-ordinated
activity and improved communication within ICANN. Geographical dispersal
issues can be tackled later providing ICANN is delivering its key goals.
Finally, our constituency is concerned about the long term, strategic
funding of ICANNs activities. In particular, we do not believe that
ICANN should rely upon the expansion of the names space as the crucial
mechanism for long-term fiscal support. We believe that the names space
will never blossom into a rich source of long-term funding for the
organisation. The current experience of existing names leads us to that
conclusion as does the limited collection of second round proposals for
additions to the names space.
With regard to the issue of alternative sources of revenue it is the
view of the ISPCP that it remains imperative that funding requirements
do not jeopardise the neutrality of ICANN as an organisation. We suggest
that expanding the role of private companies in the ICANN funding model
needs to be left to future years when ICANN has firmly established its
position and the implications of any such change can be examined more
closely.
