RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Bret. I should have mentioned similar concerns about the Operational
Plan and the Budget. Both are filled with assumptions that have not been
vetted with the affected bodies well enough. I'm not criticizing the staff
but would ask that the vetting process be improved. Asking for people to
attend computer generated sessions at ICANN face to face meetings where
there is no accountability for the brainstorm input does not reflect a good
process for StratPlan input. I think that the staff need to actually meet
with, even by phone, the constituencies and the RIRs, etc. there has been
some high level contact but we, as constituencies, aren't probably being
insistent enough on input. There is too much reliance on the contracted
parties, with a failure to understand and reflect that without the balance
of the users participation, ICANN's legitimacy is significantly challenged. 

I'm a fan of having a sufficient budget to fulfill ICANN's mission; but I
share Bret's concerns as articulated here. 

Marilyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:03 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council /ICANN Board dinner, Monday 26 in FES 2

> It would be useful for Council members to post to the list 
> any issues that they think should be raised with the ICANN Board.

I don't know if it's been raised separately, but I am concerned with the
budget growth and the planning process that has created this growth. 

The current budget process is to start with a set of goals ("strategic
planning"), figure out how to implement those goals ("operational planning")
and then attach dollars to them ("budget planning"). This is backwards.
Other entities start with a budget and then fit the goals into the available
revenue. If they can't accomplish all of their goals, they have to
prioritize those goals ito fit within the budget. (I also think that the
community would focus more on what is really important for ICANN if it was
forced to work within a certain budget.)

Another problem with the budget growth is that it is too fast. Here's the
budget arc:

1999...........$5,900,000
2000...........$5,024,000
2001...........$6,030,000
2002...........$6,015,000
2003...........$8,255,000
2004..........$15,830,000 
2005..........$22,988,000
2006..........$30,977,000 (proposed)

The number of staff members and offices also have grown during this time
along a similar arc. Most organizations in a single office cannot absorb
this sort of explosive growth, so you have to wonder how an organization as
geographically disperse as ICANN can do it. 

We should support measured growth, 5-10% per year, but not a process that
sees the budget double every two years. 

If the budget issues have not been raised with the Board, please raise them.


        Bret