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.