| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments Open | Call for Comments Close | Vote Open | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01.05.2015 | SUBMITTED | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Carole Cornell | AL-ALAC-ST-0515-01-00-EN |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF document below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The ALAC thanks the ICANN Finance Department for the significant improvements in the establishment of the proposed budget, specifically when it comes to engaging ICANN Communities at an early stage.
The ALAC is satisfied with the Budget proposal as a whole, but has one specific item of concern, related to the evolution of support for ICANN Policy Development.
Both the GNSO and the ALAC’s activities are essentially funded under the ICANN Policy budget. Policy Development is a Core activity at ICANN. It is this Multistakeholder Policy Development that differentiates ICANN from any other organisation. The overall budget allocated to Policy Development and supporting the SO/ACs, including constituency travel support, is about 11.4 million US Dollars – a figure derived from the document supplied. Although it is understood that this might not strictly be the total budget for SO/AC Policy Support, this figure constitutes the bulk of its budget. Yet, this is a comparably small figure compared to the overall ICANN Budget expense for the year of 118.6 million US Dollars (113 million US Dollar baseline excluding initiatives) – surprisingly less than 10% of total budget for a Core Activity and Key differentiation factor.
The ALAC has significant concerns about the growth of this budget which it believes to be too low.
This concern translates directly to concerns about staffing levels. Data in the table on page 9 of the Draft FY16 Budget by Portfolio and Project (“1.1 Resource Allocation”) indicates that in the coming financial year 27 FTEs will support policy development, or around 8% of total FTEs. The budget indicates that 16 new staff hires are expected for FY16, yet, although there appears to be a rise of 1.7 FTE in Policy Support, none of the hires seem to be in Policy Support. Both the GNSO and the ALAC have not seen, nor are they expecting a reduction in their activities. Quite the contrary, the ALAC forecasts a number of new PDPs, review processes, as well as a potential next round of gTLDs which will only serve to increase the demand on already busy Staff. Its Community of At-Large Structures will soon reach the 200 mark – translating to a need for increased support of its increased activity. The ALAC is therefore concerned that this need to increase FTEs supporting Policy both in the GNSO and in the ALAC is not currently reflected in the budget and may lead to both Staff overwork and Community frustration, thus leading to a reduction in Community involvement that risks making long term evolution of the Multistakeholder model unsustainable.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The ALAC thanks the ICANN Finance Department for the significant improvements in the establishment of the proposed budget, specifically when it comes to engaging ICANN Communities at an early stage.
The ALAC is satisfied with the Budget proposal as a whole, but has one specific item of concern, related to the evolution of support for ICANN Policy Development.
Both the GNSO and the ALAC’s activities are essentially funded under the ICANN Policy budget. Policy Development is a Core activity at ICANN. It is this Multistakeholder Policy Development that differentiates ICANN from any other organisation. The overall budget allocated to Policy Development and supporting the SO/ACs, including constituency travel support, is about 11.4 million US Dollars – a figure derived from the document supplied. Although it is understood that this might not strictly be the total budget for SO/AC Policy Support, this figure constitutes the bulk of its budget. Yet, this is a comparably small figure compared to the overall ICANN Budget expense for the year of 118.6 million US Dollars (113 million US Dollar baseline excluding initiatives) – surprisingly less than 10% of total budget for a Core Activity and Key differentiation factor.
The ALAC has significant concerns about the growth of this budget which it believes to be too low.
This concern translates directly to concerns about staffing levels. Data in the table on page 9 of the Draft FY16 Budget by Portfolio and Project (“1.1 Resource Allocation”) indicates that in the coming financial year 27 FTEs will support policy development, or around 8% of total FTEs. The budget indicates that 16 new staff hires are expected for FY16, yet, although there appears to be a rise of 1.7 FTE in Policy Support, none of the hires seem to be in Policy Support. Both the GNSO and the ALAC have not seen, nor are they expecting a reduction in their activities. Quite the contrary, the ALAC forecasts a number of new PDPs, review processes, as well as a potential next round of gTLDs which will only serve to increase the demand on already busy Staff. Its Community of At-Large Structures will soon reach the 200 mark – translating to a need for increased support of its increased activity. The ALAC is therefore concerned that this need to increase FTEs supporting Policy both in the GNSO and in the ALAC is not currently reflected in the budget and may lead to both Staff overwork and Community frustration, thus leading to a reduction in Community involvement that risks making long term evolution of the Multistakeholder model unsustainable.
2 Comments
Tijani Ben Jemaa
I like the statement, but think it must reflect the opinion of At-Large (ALAC) and not ALAC and the GNSO. It is not a joint statement.
Alan Greenberg
Tijani, it is a bit late as the statement has already gone out, but regardless, I am not sure what your concern is.
This is clearly an ALAC statement - 3 of the 5 paragraphs start with "The ALAC..." and the 3rd paragraph which includes the GNSO starts with a simple statement of fact.
However, we are not only concerned about the lack of growth of the At-Large policy team, but that of the GNSO as well. Much of our focus is on GNSO policy, and for that to be handled properly, they need sufficient staff as well.