ICANN Policy for Comment : http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12
Summary of AC/SO Budget Requests : http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf
Google Doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/114VVRkBq2kQKInfkgGWM3qhcXsUR6Bb17GXDhURYuyc/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CMjwrcII
The Latin American and Caribbean Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO), being the representatives of the Internet end-users in the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region, submits our comments regarding ICANN's Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12).
We appreciate the dialogue with and feedback from ICANN Financial Staff on the evaluation of the ALAC/At-Large budget requests that were submitted for inclusion in ICANN's draft Operational Plan and Budget 2012. We wish to see such dialogue continue in future Operational Plans and Budgets.
However, we note with considerable concern that, once again, many of the budget requests (http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf) proposed by At-Large to improve participation of user organizations in ICANN (the base of the pyramid on which the "multi-stakeholder model" sits) were not approved or only partially approved.
From our proposals, the budget for a General Assembly (GA) has been cut to an extent where only 6 ALS representatives will be funded to attend. The LAC region has more than 30 ALSs representatives accredited.
It is impossible to have a successful General Assembly without the physical presence and face to face interaction of all the ALS representatives of the region, especially for a system based on the bottom-up participation and democratic principles which define ICANN. This view has consensus throughout the At-Large community.
These cuts do not only undermine and limit the possibility of real participation in the proposed annual LACRALO General Assembly, but also, given that there is no funding approved for in-reach and out-reach in our region, limit the participation of the end-users of the LAC region in the overall ICANN process. We appreciate the limited efforts made by ICANN to date, but we strongly believe that users should have a large, active and physical presence in all the policy-making processes. There is much more that can be done, but we fear that the budget cuts reflect a lack of commitment to and show a lack of value for end-user participation in ICANN processes.
We believe that, given ICANN’s fiscal resources, this budget can easily be adjusted to ensure funds to support the participation of the ALSes in a General Assembly once a year as well as funds to finance activities related to in-reach and out-reach, if these are truly considered important by the Board and Staff of ICANN.
Regarding LACRALO's proposals for outreach that were not approved, we take note of ICANN's Public Participation Committee (PPC; http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/) Work Schedule to create a "Comprehensive Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Strategy" and look forward to consultations with the PPC to create such a strategy so that it can be implemented as soon as possible. This is crucially important as only 15 out of 33 countries in the LAC region have any At-Large representation.
We look forward to your response and stand ready to discuss the possibilities that could be a solution to this dire situation facing those who by their presence throughout the structure of the Organization, support and legitimise ICANN’s role.
15 Comments
Jacqueline Morris
Prefer the second version, both in content and tone.
The rhetorical bits in the first one, text like "defending activists of the civil society" doesn't sit well in English.
I'm also against the text identifying At Large as a weak link in the organisation - it directly contradicts other statements made by At Large (ALAC)
Sergio Salinas Porto
jaqueline, las organizaciones de usuarios somos el eslabón mas débil en una cadena de poder económico! o usted piensa que esta en igualdad de condiciones que los estados y las empresas? Quizás si estuviéramos en igualdad de condiciones no estaríamos discutiendo por este tema.
Jacqueline Morris
It's not what I think, (I haven't indicated anything of my position on that issue, and few people know what I think - mindreaders do not exist) it is that there should be consistency in statements. ALAC has on many occasions indicated the strength of the group via the vast numbers of end users working in the processes via the At Large. The statement as I read it above, directly contradicts this. "weakest link in the chain of command that interacts with the organization"
Sergio Salinas Porto
Ese no fue el sentido de mi declaracion!.
El sentido era: eslabon mas debil en una cadena de poder económico! esa es la frase final, pido disculpas si se malinterpreto en el texto que envié.
that was not the meaning of my statement!. The meaning was: weakest link in a chain of economic power! this is the final sentence,I apologize if you misinterpreted the text I sent
Jacqueline Morris
Made some changes and comments on the original (Sergio's draft) in the google docs. Mostly done to improve the language, clarify points, remove rhetoric.
Anonymous
Voy a copiar aquí mi comentario ( que envié a la lista )sobre la primera declaración para que quede registradö :
Creo que vale la pena hacer un poco de historia y aclarar que aquí estamos solicitando nada más de lo que fue negociado y firmado en el Memorándum de Entendimiento ("MOU", por sus siglas en inglés) en São Paulo en 2006.
Copio a continuación parte del MOU:
" 4. Responsabilidades acordadas por ICANN ICANN está de acuerdo en que mientras dure este MOU, trabajará en conjunto con la LACRALO para apoyar actividades At-Large en la región de América Latina y el Caribe, las cuales incluyen:
4.1. Ayuda para informar a los usuarios individuales de Internet en la región de América Latina y el Caribe acerca de noticias, reuniones, actividades de desarrollo de políticas y las oportunidades para participación en ICANN;
4.2 Ayuda a promover actividades para mejorar el alcance de información a la comunidad de usuarios individuales de Internet en la región de América Latina y el Caribe con el fin de avanzar en el entendimiento y participación en aquellos temas de la agenda de ICANN y que tienen impacto para los usuarios individuales de Internet;
4.3 Ofrecer mecanismos basados en Internet que permitan la discusión entre los miembros de las ALS de la región con aquellos actores involucrados en el proceso de toma de decisiones de ICANN, así como incentivar a los individuos interesados a compartir sus puntos de vista sobre los asuntos pendientes que trata ICANN.
4.4 Proveer los recursos necesarios para apoyar las actividades de la LACRALO sujeto a los procesos del plan operativo y definición del presupuesto de ICANN."
Saludos a todos,
Sylvia Herlein
==============================================================
English versión
I think it is worth making a little history and clarify that we are asking here is not nothing more than what was negotiated and signed the MOU in São Paulo in 2006.
Copy of the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) follows:
( free translation from the Spanish version)
"4. Responsibilities agreed by ICANN
ICANN agrees that the duration of this MOU, will work together with the LACRALO to support At-Large activities within the region Latin America and the Caribbean, which include:
4.1. Help to inform individual Internet users in the Latin America and the Caribbean about news, meetings, policy development activities and opportunities for ICANN participation;
4.2 Aid to promote activities to improve the scope of information to the community of individual Internet users the region of Latin America and the Caribbean to advance the understanding and involvement in those issues on the agenda ICANN and have impact on individual users Internet;
4.3 offers Internet-based mechanisms that allow the discussion among members of the ALS in the region with those actors involved in the decision making process of ICANN, and and encourage interested individuals to share points views on the pending issues is ICANN.
4.4 Provide the necessary resources to support activities LACRALO subject to processes and definition of operational plan ICANN budget. "
Regards,
Sylvia Herlein
Jacqueline Morris
Actually, ICANN never ever agreed to have F2F GAs as a continuing thing. The agreement was to support travel to the ICANN meetings for "ALS members" to ensure that everyone got a good idea as to what ICANN was & got to participate "live" in the processes etc.
With regard to history, I particularly recall being questioned by some Board members while we were working out this whole RALO thing that if there were 1000 ALSes in the LAC region, if ICANN would be expected to fly them all to a meeting, and replying something along the lines of - if ICANN got 1000 ALSes in LACRALO, it would have no problem funding that conference, as ICANN would be HUGE with massive revenues. ;)
According to the letter of the agreement, "necessary resources" have been provided by ICANN - they include staff, translation services, teleconferences, documentation, this wiki, support for LACRALO reps to go to meetings etc.
Now we need to argue the definition of "necessary" and argue that the participation of all LACRALO ALS representatives in a F2F GA funded by ICANN is necessary. The document already argues a bit of this, but i think that to be successful it needs to be MUCH stronger, with additional supporting arguments.
Sergio Salinas Porto
en español e ingles:
This talk that ICANN can make changes to their "expenses" to lobby for more BUDGET for ALAC, expenses, fund travel of representatives of states (states do not have to pay for a hotel and a ticket for your representative ???), high salaries, etc ...
I see that Section 7.2 of the .net contract stipulates the payment of "a Registry-Level Transaction Fee in an amount equal to US$0.75 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another during the calendar quarter to which the Registry-Level Transaction Fee pertains. ICANN intends to apply this fee to purposes including: (a) a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders" -- transaction revenues applied to this fund are well in excess of $10,000,00.
I also see that ICANN has $ 52,000,000 in its reserve fund, we can not say! our funds are limited, we have no money in our coffers! ".
Esto habla de que la ICANN se puede hacer cambios a sus "gastos" para presionar por más presupuesto para la ALAC, gastos, viajes de fondos de los representantes de los estados (los estados no tienen para pagar por un hotel y un boleto para ir y venir cuando muchos de ellso tienen aerolineas de bandera ???), alto salarios de representantes de ICANN, etc ...
Veo que el artículo 7.2 del contrato. neto estipula el pago de una "tasa de registro de nivel de transacciones en una cantidad igual a EE.UU. $ 0.75 por cada incremento anual de un registro de nombres de dominio inicial o de renovación y para la transferencia de un registro de nombre de dominio de ICANN -registrador acreditado a otro durante el trimestre natural al que la Secretaría del nivel de transacciones. ICANN tiene la intención de aplicar esta tasa a fines, entre ellos:. (a) un fondo especial restringida para el desarrollo de comunidades de los países de Internet para permitir una mayor participación en la misión de la ICANN en desarrollo interesados de los países "- que los ingresos de transacciones se aplica a este fondo están muy por encima de $ 10,000.00.
También veo que ICANN tiene 52.000.000 dólares en su fondo de reserva, no podemos decir: nuestros fondos son limitados, no tenemos dinero en nuestras arcas! ".
Cintra Sooknanan
LACRALO comment on ICANN’s Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget
draft responses (initial from Sergio, edits by Jacqueline, Dev and Cintra)
(extracted from [http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2011/002768.html|http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2011/002768.html])
The Latin American and Caribbean Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO), being the Internet end-user representatives in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), submits our comments regarding ICANN's Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12).
We appreciate the dialogue and feedback from ICANN Financial Staff to evaluate the ALAC/At-Large budget requests that were submitted for inclusion in ICANN's draft Operational Plan and Budget 2012. We wish to see such dialogue continue in future Operational Plans and Budgets.
WHowever, we, the representatives of end users of the Internet in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), note with considerable concern that, once again, many of the budget requests (http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf) proposed by At-Large (http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf) to improve participation in ICANN of user organizations in ICANN, (the basefoundation base of the pyramid on which sits the "multi -stakeholder model" sits,) were not approved or only partially approved.
From our proposals, the budget for a General Assembly (GA) has been cut to an extent where only 6 ALS representatives will be funded to attend. The LAC region has more than 30 ALSs representatives accredited.
It is impossible to have a successful General Assembly (GA) without the in-personphysical presence and face to face interaction of all the ALS representatives of the region, especially infor a system based ion the bbottom-up participation and democratic principles which define ICANN. This view hais consensus throughout the At -Large community.
These cuts do not only undermine and limit the possibility of real participation in the proposed annual LACRALO General Assembly (GA), but also, given that there is no funding approved for in-reach and out-reach in our region, limit the participation of the end-users of the LAC region in the overall ICANN process. We appreciate the limited efforts made by ICANN to date, but we strongly believe that users should have a large, active and physical presence in all the policy-making processes. There is much more that can be done. W, but we fear that the budget cuts reflect a lack of commitment to and show a lack of value offor end-user participation in ICANN processes.
We believe that, given ICANN’s fiscal resources, this budget can easily be adjusted to ensure funds to support the participation of the ALSes in a General Assembly once a year as well as funds to finance activities related to in-reach and out-reach, if these are truly considered important by the Board and Staff of ICANN.
Regarding LACRALO's proposals for outreach that were not approved, we take note of ICANN's Public Participation Committee (PPC ; http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/) Work Schedule to create a "Comprehensive Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Strategy" and look forward to consultations with the PPC to create such a strategy so that it can be implemented as soon as possible,. This is crucially important as there is an At-Large presencerepresentation in only 15 out of 33 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region.
We look forward to your response and call to discuss the possibilities that our approach could be as a solution to this dire situation facing those who maintain their presence throughout the scaffold structure of the Organization.
Carlton Samuels
Sergio is right: ICANN expects to showcase end user participation in names and numbers policy to fullfill its obligations under the AoC on the cheap. We must always remind them that it is in their strategic interest to show effective end user participation, not just to mention structures. And that requires some 'skin in the game', for which they have been given descriptive as well as prescriptive guidance too many times.
Secondly, with respect to Sergio's reference to 'weakest link', the context of that reference is really the web of interests that surrounds ICANN. He recognizes that commercial interests and governmental interests are stronger than end user interests in the olicy development process. At least I think that is what he's reaching for, just that the translation garbles the idea.
Finally, I very much prefer the content that has emerged with Cintra's last inputs.
Sergio Salinas Porto
Englñish & Spanish:
with respect to "the weakest link in a chain of economic power" and its modification by the "bottom of the pyramid"
I do stress upon "link" because I am convinced that ICANN is not arguing that all we have with respect to the pyramid, "especially if it is a food pyramid and we abide by the law of Darwin (the big fish eats the boy) -.
What ICANN is telling us: they want to participate? Well do it but with your funds! and there begins a discussion different OSC that users do not have the funds to add to the coffers of ICANN and to participate, just for being "the weakest link in a chain of economic power" that is in a position of disadvantage compared with states and businesses.
--------------------------------------------
con respecto a "el eslabon mas debil de una cadena de poder económico" y su modificacion por "la base de la piramide":
Yo hago incapie en "el eslabon" por que estoy convencido que ICANN no esta discutiendo que lugar tenemos con respecto a la píramide, sobre todo si ésta es una piramide alimenticia y nosotros nos regimos por ley de Darwin (el pez grande se come al chico).
Lo que nos esta diciendo ICANN es: quieren participar? pues bien haganlo pero con sus fondos! y ahi comienza una discucion diferente, por que las OSC de usuarios no tenemos fondos para agregarle a las arcas de ICANN y poder participar, justamente por ser "el eslabon mas debil de una cadena de poder económico" que se encuentra en una posicion de desventaja en comparacion con los estados y las empresas.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Have updated the Wiki page and Google doc with the single merged version of Sergio's and Dev drafts with the edits by Jacqueline, Dev and Cintra). We need to review including the comments from Sergio, Sylvia, Jacqueline and see if further refinement is needed
Cintra Sooknanan
I made these two comments on the main ALAC FY12 response wiki, but they may be more appropriately included in our document
1. During the San Francisco meeting Staff said that multi-year proposals would be treated if is approved in the first year as being approved for subsequent years. For example LACRALO GA was proposed as being multi-year (with one each year focusing on a different topic), so the natural assumption is that Staff is suggesting that we can only anticipate 6 travel slots for a GA will be provided for the next 4 years (FY12-16).
2. Outreach plans, using media eg. podcasts to countries/jurisdictions without ALSes, were rejected with the reasoning that any action be deferred until the PPC (Public Participation Committee) has the opportunity to develop an overall Outreach plan for all constituency and stakeholder groups. We strongly suggest that At-Large is included in the development of this overall Outreach plan to ensure its success.
Jacqueline Morris
Made final proofreading changes in the English version. The spanish one seems to have some items that are weird; not sure if it was the google translate:
Point 1)
" ICANN's present and future fiscal resources" If we talk about future resources, then they might well say - submit the proposals when those future resources come on line...
Point 2)
"We believe that ICANN in its policy of supporting Internet users must understand that history has shown that "human groups" that they got it has been for the cohesion of its members. Synergy and empathy are key when it comes to teamwork and Lacralo, no doubt, work as such."
is not a paragraph in the english version at all, and this version (per Google Translate) make very little sense in English.
Point 3)
"The region sees that if one takes into account the fiscal resources, present and future of ICANN, this budget can be adjusted to ensure
funds to support the participation of the ISSA General Assembly in a once a year, as well as funding for related activities with the "In-reach" and "Out-reach", as stipulated in article 4 of the MOU signed between ICANN and the representatives of the Region December 2006."
The MoU did not discuss what were necessary items. ICANN's finance ppl will trot out the very high cost of translation and interpretation services, preparation of materials in multiple languages etc as resources towards outreach per the MoU. I'd really suggest that we not go there, and this text is not in the English version.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Re: Point #2 - This was a contribution to the Spanish version. I think it is trying to say along the lines of "ICANN support for At-Large (Internet users)/Civil society is important for social cohesion and financial support for At-Large activities would show that ICANN emphasises with and is working in harmony with At-Large/Civil Society"