Re: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11

[David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and Adrian:

I agree with both your assessments that we are going to need quantifications of 
resource constraints and capacities if the Council is to manage the overall 
GNSO workload responsibly and effectively.   The Work Prioritization Drafting 
Team recognized this important factor in its transmittal email forwarded to the 
Council by Olga Cavalli (9 April 2010).  In particular I would highlight:

“The DT believes that prioritization is an important first step of the 
Council’s broader project management role, which should be further defined and 
will require appropriate tools to assist in the active and effective management 
of the workload.  To facilitate these managerial responsibilities, the DT 
recommends that:

1)      a process be developed to allow timely tracking of GNSO projects on an 
on-going basis; and

2)      its process be supported with a web-based software toolkit (e.g. 
excellent open source applications are available) that will assign Staff and 
Community resources to projects/tasks and offer time/milestone tracking plus 
advanced collaboration capabilities allowing work to be managed efficiently, 
effectively, and transparently. “

While I agree that rough FTE type calculations may provide some useful guidance 
in the near term, I the GNSO should have available a process such as 
highlighted in Olga’s two bullet points.   I am hoping that the Council will 
accept the WPM-DT’s recommendation and commission a team, working with my 
Staff, to define appropriate program/project management disciplines along with 
an integrated suite of tools designed to provide both the Council and ICANN  
management with the data and facts needed for both resource capacity planning 
(Community and Staff) as well as real-time decision-making.

I welcome and look forward to your involvement and others in these discussions.

David Olive


On 4/20/10 9:30 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Excellent points Adrian.  Your suggestions would make good input to the 
operating plan and budget process.  I also think it would be good for you to 
pursue your ideas further with David Olive.  And finally, what you are talking 
about would be a good start to what needs to happen once we do the 
prioritization exercise; the prioritization DT developed a methodology for 
prioritizing projects but that is not the end because we then need to figure 
out how we apply the priorities in our everyday policy work.  It seems to me 
that what you are saying is an integral part of developing a way for the 
Council to manage the process.

David - What are your thoughts?

Chuck



________________________________
From: Adrian Kinderis  [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010  7:59 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx;  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS  Studies Funding for FY11





I  think what the GNSO needs is a very simple resource model that maps current  
staffing, travel, external study funds against tasks.   You don't  actually 
need to be managing a staff budget, it is really managing a resource  profile.



So  I would expect something along the lines of:



policy  staff:  4.5 FTE

Travel  funds in addition to ICANN meetings:  $x

Funds  for external studies: $y



Then  you would expect some estimates related to the PDP steps:



-           issues  report: x FTE


-            Initial  report: y FTE


-            final  report: z FTE




You  should then be able to work out that there is capacity for say 3 PDPs in  
parallel.



Then  what should those 3 be for the year becomes the  question....



Right  now you have GNSO council kicking off work left and right - with low  
thresholds to start something.   The staff don't have the ability to  say “no, 
can't fit that in this year”.



The  ultimate result is staff are spread too thin.



Of  course the same applies to the volunteer resources.  Each stakeholder  
group probably has up to about 4 FTE of people really available to spend hours  
on this sort of work.  I am talking about heavy lifters here - able to  guide 
and draft text.



So  the point becomes how prioritisation needs to understand how many 
activities  the GNSO can do well.  Part of the reason the GNSO doesn't make 
much  progress on some things - is it is working on 10-20 projects at  once.



I  look forward to the Prioritisation Working Group presenting on their  model.



Chuck  – further comments below.





Adrian  Kinderis





From: Gomes,  Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010  10:35 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis; KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx;  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS  Studies Funding for FY11



Adrian,



Please  see my responses below.



Chuck




________________________________


From:  Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday,  April 19, 2010 7:42 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck;  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS  Studies Funding for FY11

Wolf  et al,



What  concerns me over the entire function of the Council is the fact that 
there  is no budget associated with the policy development*.
[Gomes,  Chuck] There is a budget associated with policy development although 
it  is not separated as a policy development budget per se.  It would be  
helpful if it was.

[AK]  Agreed



The  Work Prioritisation Team is about to present a prioritisation methodology  
and process that is unable to take into account the amount of staff time  that 
is budgeted to support prioritised work.
[Gomes,  Chuck] Estimates could probably be made in this regard but I don't  
think they are needed to do the initial prioritization.  They  would become 
quite important if we do not have enough resources to do all of  our work.

[AK]  That is exactly my point! If we don’t have the resources perhaps we 
should  re-evaluate our prioritisation!



This  seems upside down or back-to-front or something.



How  can we comment on funding for WHOIS studies when we have no visibility on  
how much it may impact our ability to have staff support other important  areas 
of work?
[Gomes,  Chuck] My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of the  
Studies work would be outsourced.  Obviously Staff has to arrange for  that and 
manage it; is that what you are talking about Adrian?  I  assume the Whois 
Studies project, if we approve some studies would be a part  of our 
prioritization exercise, but that would only be the case if there are  funds to 
do some studies.

[AK]  That is indeed what i mean. Do we have any idea how big the bucket is and 
 how much each task/ project will impact it?



*On  a GNSO call a few months back I asked Denise explicitly if there was a  
budget for staff support of Policy Development. I was told directly and  
clearly that there is not.
[Gomes,  Chuck] I think there is a misunderstanding here.  There are lots  of 
funds in the budget to support policy development work; we benefit  from those 
funds everyday.  But, as noted above, to date they have  not been reported as a 
separate and inclusive budget  category.





Adrian  Kinderis






From:  owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On  
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 6:40  AM
To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx;  council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Motion for WHOIS  Studies Funding for FY11



Chuck



is  this meant as a placeholder to be sure having funds available in FY11? 
Which  is the deadline where it has to become more precise in terms of the 
number  and kind of studies to be funded?

I  suppose everybody has own priorities. Speaking on behalf of the ISP  
constituency we would like to see on top those studies dealing with data  
accuracy improvement and secondly those digging into the privacy  complex.







Regards
Wolf-Ulrich







________________________________


Von:  owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im  
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. April 2010  22:37
An: GNSO Council
Betreff: [council] Motion for  WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
Wichtigkeit: Hoch

<<Motion  for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>>


In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their  respective 
SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic  recommendations for 
funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no  such recommendations were 
submitted.  Recognizing that the Draft  ICANN Budget has to be posted not later 
than 17 May and our next Council  meeting after the one on 21 April is not 
until 20 May, three days later, I  decided that we should try to make a 
recommendation in our meeting on 21  April.  To facilitate that possibility I 
asked Liz to draft the  attached motion (also pasted below).


Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an  
exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions  
before we could act on this motion.  Also note that the motion has a  
placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies.  My  personal 
opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in  FY11 and even 
better if we could fund three if they are ready to go,  thereby avoiding very 
lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three  studies.  Based on the 
estimates provided for two of the studies, a  minimum of $300,000 would be 
needed and it might be wise to add a 10%  buffer on to that, making it 
$330,000.  If we decided to budget for  three studies, one of which we do not 
have any cost estimates for, we  could bump the amount up to $500,000.


In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much  will 
ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at  least 
make a recommendation for consideration by the community and  ultimately the 
ICANN Board.


.


Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our  meeting 
on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we  decide at that 
time if possible.


Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to  second it 
without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well.  If  anyone would rather 
see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can  later be amended.


Chuck


Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11


Whereas:


In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive,  objective 
and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding  the gTLD WHOIS 
system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts  
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/)


Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited  suggestions from 
the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS.  Suggestions were 
submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/  ) and ICANN staff 
prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further  Studies of WHOIS', dated 
25-Feb-2008 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
  ).


On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit  further 
constituency views assessing both the priority level and the  feasibility of 
the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of  deciding which studies, 
if any, should be assessed for cost and  feasibility.


The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest  average 
priority scores should be the subject of further research to  determine 
feasibility and obtain cost estimates.


On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research  on 
feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and  following that 
assessment the Council would decide which studies should be  conducted 
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903)


On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of  costs and 
feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to  work on the 
remaining areas


Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US  dollar 
amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011.


Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution  to the 
ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance  Committee.





David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN
Office: 310.578.8617
Cell:  202.341.3611