ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-budget]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-budget] DNSO costs - agenda item Wed 21 Nov


As most of you recall, I have been one who favors independent financing of the DNSO because I believe that removes any possible connection between the DNSO and its funding source that might influence the ability for the DNSO to make fully independent policy recommendations.  Philosophically, my opinions have not changed on this issue.  At the same time, if others feel strongly about pursuing ICANN funding, then I think that we should request sufficient funding to cover not only the information management (Secretariat) and the technical services support functions but also enough to fund a full-time policy development position.
 
First of all, I believe that $75,000 per year is not enough to cover basic expenses.  By themselves, the to-be-contracted information management and technical services will cost $60,000 per year excluding any travel, telecommunications and other miscellaneous costs not included in the $60,000.  As a first step, we as the budget committee should estimate what our full 2002 budget will look like and make sure that we provide a more accurate figure than $75,000.  We should include such expenses as in-person meeting costs, web-casting of in-person meetings, etc.
 
With regard to policy development area, this is an area in my opinion that the NC has totally neglected.  The ICANN Bylaws clearly define the NC's responsibility to be that of consensus management, but almost no effort has been made to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that the consensus development processes happen in an objective, measurable and defensible manner.  Many people are understandably very critical of the ineffectiveness of the consensus process within the DNSO and want to come up with alternative ways to be able to make it easier to reach consensus, but very few have been willing to commit the financial or labor resources to put a clear and workable foundation in place to truly allow the NC to manage the consensus process in a nonpolitical and non-arbitrary way.
 
VGRS offered $100,000 in matching funds to support a full-time policy development position, but the voluntary fund-raising effort is going nowhere fast.  There is no evidence that this effort will succeed.   Whether ICANN structure stays as it is today or changes in the future, there absolutely must be some consensus development policies and procedures put in place to provide the guidance needed for the entire community with regard to how the process should work and also to ensure that NC can objectively fulfill its consensus management role.
 
Consequently, if we decide to recommend ICANN funding of the DNSO, then I recommend that we include at least $150,000 on top of the the funds needed to cover the basic budget.
 
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:10 AM
To: NC budget
Subject: [nc-budget] DNSO costs - agenda item Wed 21 Nov

Please note this is the text I referred to in my proposal for the agenda of this week's budget call.
Philip
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 08 October 2001 13:59
Subject: DNSO costs

Roger and the budget committee,
could you include this on your next meeting agenda? I would like comments and/or approval of the following draft text which would go to Stuart Lynn to assist in his preparations for the ICANN 2002 budget.
Philip.
---------------------------------
Stuart,
ICANN budget preparation for 2002
 
You will recall that previously in 2001 we asked ICANN to finance the costs of DNSO secretariat support and that the Finance Committee declined as the budget had been set for the year 2001.
 
In order to be in time for the budget 2002 I would like to make the request again and provide further information.
 
1. The request follows an earlier NC resolution.
2. There is support in the ALSC 2001 report for central funding.
3. Constituencies waste considerable time on fund raising activities, taking away time from DNSO policy advise to the Board.
4. Fees cause division in the DNSO (eg the non comm constituency is on a time line to have its votes withdrawn) and this division is counterproductive to achieving policy consensus.
5. The DNSO is a central part of the ICANN process and the most political/ media exposed of the SOs.
6. The ICANN secretariat is about to issue contracts for the provision of professional DNSO secretariat support, so this service is already under ICANN staff control.
7. I believe there is sufficient DNSO funds to cover this service until the next ICANN budget round.
8. Based on these contracts and an estimate on travel/overtime costs we envisage an annual cost of some USD 75,000.
 
Stuart,
this is a relatively small sum as a proportion of the ICANN budget but causes relatively large acrimony to raise it in the DNSO and wastes a relatively large amount of volunteer time. Could I ask you to introduce this idea positively in the 2002 budget proposals?
 
Philip Sheppard
NC Chair


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>