|
DOCUMENT ID: NRO12
15 July 2004
The NRO has made a detailed analysis of the
Budget proposal and has expressed, through its representative on
the Budget Advisory Group, several questions and comments, some
of which have been attended to while others have not.
The NRO, and the RIRs as a whole before the NRO was
constituted, has always manifested its intention to see more clearly ICANN's
budget from different points of view, a very important one being the budget
by department. For instance, the NRO has repeatedly stated a desire for
better cost accounting of ICANN activities related specifically to the
different ICANN constituencies represented by supporting organizations.
Also, the NRO has clearly stated its interest in knowing IANA's budget.
Neither request implies that the NRO is only willing to contribute economically
to ASO-related activities or to the operation of IANA, but only that this
information is important to us as critical stakeholders in ICANN's mission.
We understand that, as more details are included
in the budget proposal, more discussions will be generated, but
at the same time there will be more transparency. Also, it is a
basic right of the constituencies that finance ICANN to know what
ICANN does with its budget, both in general and in relation to each
constituency specifically.
The NRO agrees that the role of ICANN must
go beyond the mere technical coordination of the domain name system
and Internet Number Resources. ICANN must participate in international
debates in different forums and provide a discussion arena for different
initiatives relative to its mission. In agreement with this vision,
the NRO has been very supportive with ICANN's participation in processes
such as the WSIS.
However, we have the perception that ICANN
performs tasks that are not within its specific mission, such as
operating a root server or funding the operation of other servers,
or tasks that are already handled by other organizations such as
the IETF, ISOC, MINC and others. It is only by making more detailed
information public that it will be possible to generate a true debate
on these issues.
The proposed budget warrants some specific
comments on our behalf; for example, the amount allocated to the
item "meetings and other travel," which is quite high and would
seem to imply that it is necessary to review ICANN's travel and
meetings policies. But the most worrying aspects are related to
the process and the context. The bottom-up process of constructing
the budget has not worked. The role of the Budget Advisory Group
(BAG) has been minor, as there was little discussion within this
group, and ICANN did not provide all the information it was requested.
The budget's increase in relation to last year's
budget is very important, and would have justified a much more detailed
and careful analysis and debate. The lack of this discussion leaves
uncertainties in relation to the budgets for the years to come.
It would be important to know what is the forecast for the evolution
of ICANN's budget during the following years.
The NRO does not wish to obstruct ICANN's operation
by opposing the proposed budget, but it is indispensable that ICANN
assumes public commitments in relation to the future treatment of
these matters. The NRO is not willing to support future budgets
if more importance is not given to the BAG, and if the information
that has been repeatedly requested in the past is not provided.
Finally, we wish to express that we have
no position in relation to changing the income model in reference
to the Registrars, but we recommend seeking a solution for this
controversy that is widely supported and avoids risking the stability
and balance within the ICANN environment.
|
