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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Good start of discussing real council management issues! Once we've
reached a more common understanding (and consensus) of the
prioritization to be undertaken we should immediately refer to Doug
Brent and Kevin Wilson to discuss how operating and budget plan could
fit into GNSO prioritization and vice versa. I understood from a side
discussion that they are keen on getting council input.
I sympathize with Adrian's structured approach as basis for a ressource
management model between GNSO and ICANN and like to suggest working on
this in the near future.
 



Regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  

Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 15:30
An: Adrian Kinderis; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11


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-repor
t-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.