[Finance-sc] Draft ALAC comments on the Budget Process Proposal

Sat Sep 29 15:53:34 UTC 2012

Dear Tijani,

Thank you very much for your clarification, which I appreciate very much.
I often forget that this is the first time that funding has been
allocated.  I would be agreeable with not pursuing the "timely
responsiveness" issue of ICANN departments/staff at this time.  We can
revisit it next year to see if it is necessary based on implementation
experience. Please see further comments inline below.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM, <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org> wrote:

> Dear Rinalia,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you very much for your prompt reaction, and your interesting inputs.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the attached file, the draft that I modified by including most of your
> input. For the others:****
>
> **·         **The first sentence doesn’t concern the budget planning
> only, but the whole planning process (Strategic plan, Framework, operating
> plan and budget)
>

OK.

> ****
>
> **·         **In the second paragraph, I don’t know what is the exact
> meaning of “to hinge”, but the meaning I am looking for is “be based on”.
> The dictionary says that hinge means “depend on” which is not what I mean.
>
OK

> ****
>
> **·         **You completely changed the meaning of the third Paragraph;
> I wanted to say that it is good to expend the framework development period,
> but it’s more useful to expend the period of the budget preparation.
>

This  distinction is clearer now.

> ****
>
> **·         **Priorities, Programs & projects and deliverables are the
> elements of the framework developments (for example, the priorities are
> drawn from the strategic objectives of the strategic plan). They are not
> all given by the community. The community provides the additional request
> for projects that are included in the overall projects  of the framework.
> And of course, the community comment on all the framework including
> projects, programs, priorities, etc.
>

This one gives me pause.  It is understood that the priorities etc. are
drawn from strategic objectives of the strategic plan.  The structure of
templates provided by ICANN Finance set the limits or "frame" what can be
requested for based on ICANN's defined priorities (strategic pillars
etc.).  Within the parameters of this "frame" communities make their
requests, which are in turn based on what communities consider as their
priorities.  I find the following sentence problematic - "ALAC believes
that the community interactions should be based on drafts proposed by staff
on which the community comments" - because it gives me the impression that
staff comes up with drafts of what the community is requesting for, which
the community then comments on.  In other words and to put it in
undiplomatic terms: the impression it gives is that staff tells the
community what the community wants.  Please note that this is not a problem
in the later phases of the process (i.e., after communities have
articulated and submitted their requests) because staff would aggregate the
requests and present a budget draft, which the communities then comment on
progressively in addition to the overall framework.  I hope I am being
clear in articulating my concern.  I am certain that you can come up with a
solution that can address it.

> ****
>
> **·         **Penultimate means the one before the final. I wanted that
> the very last interaction will be on the almost final draft. I’m sure you
> got my point.****
>
> **
>
I understand your point.

> **
>
> If you have any remark, please don’t hesitate to give it. I’m yours.****
>
> ** **
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------****
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director****
>
> *M*editerranean* F*ederation of *I*nternet *A*ssociations****
>
> Phone : + 216 70 825 231****
>
> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114****
>
> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231****
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *De :* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* samedi 29 septembre 2012 05:56
> *À **:* tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
> *Cc :* Finance and Budget SubCommittee; ICANN AtLarge Staff
> *Objet :* Re: [Finance-sc] Draft ALAC comments on the Budget Process
> Proposal****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Tijani,
>
> Excellent comments.  I've edited the contents slightly and present it
> below for your consideration.  What I would love to have is actually a type
> of service arrangement/agreement with ICANN where once the budget is agreed
> upon, the various departments implicated by the implementation or execution
> of the budget would have a specified minimum period in which to respond on
> the budget items depending on how time sensitive the action is (to address
> the problem that we've had with the APRALO and AFRALO IGF Baku situation),
> but it is possible that they may claim that this is not part of the  budget
> process - what do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
> ****
>
> *ALAC Comments on the Budget Process Proposal*****
>
> 28 September 2012****
>
>  ****
>
> The ALAC thanks the CFO and his team for their effort to improve the ICANN
> budget planning process, and highly appreciates their continuous efforts to
> enhance the involvement of the community in the budget development during
> last fiscal year.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Early Community Involvement and Input*****
>
> The ALAC welcomes the concept of “community involvement and input early in
> the process” with multiple interaction opportunities.  To ensure the
> effectiveness of the budget development process, the multiple interactions
> with the community must hinge on progressive proposals going from the high
> level to very detailed level documents along the specified time frame.  **
> **
>
>  ****
>
> *Extension of the Framework Development Period*****
>
> The ALAC welcomes the proposed extension of the framework development
> period as long as the interactions within the period are designed to allow
> for the community to have more time to comment on progressively more
> granulated proposals as indicated above.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Staff-Community Interaction Mechanism*****
>
> The definition of the staff-community interaction mechanism is of high
> importance to the ALAC.  The document should detail how the community will
> interact with the staff during the framework development phase, as well as
> during the budget preparation phase.****
>
>  ****
>
> After the submission of information on priority
> projects/programs/initiatives by the community based on templates provided
> by ICANN Finance, the ALAC believes that the community interactions
> should be based on drafts proposed by staff on which the community
> comments.  These drafts should provide greater levels of detail as the
> process progresses with the last interaction in April (as per the timeline
> diagram in the document) focusing on the penultimate draft of the final
> budget.  At this stage, and only if the previous interactions have
> progressed with sufficient level of detail, the public comments will not be
> about gathering input for inclusion in the final Operating plan and Budget,
> but will instead address clarification and/or comments on process as well
> as ideas for improvements in the upcoming years.****
>
>  ****
>
> *END*****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:22 PM, <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn> wrote:****
>
> Dear Sub-Committee members,
>
>
>
> With a slight delay, I’m attaching a draft of the ALAC comments on the
> Budget Process Proposal done by the CFO and his team. Your remarks are
> welcome
>
>
>
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
>
> Phone : + 216 70 825 231
>
> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
>
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : finance-sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:
> finance-sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond
> Envoyé : mercredi 19 septembre 2012 17:16
> À : 'Finance and Budget SubCommittee'
> Cc : ICANN AtLarge Staff
> Objet : [Finance-sc] Fwd: ICANN / Budget Process Strategic Planning Ad Hoc
> Session 3
>
>
>
> Dear ALAC Finance Sub-Committee,
>
>
>
> please find attached the document which has been discussed in the three
> recent conference calls with Xavier Calvez ICANN CFO and his Team,
> entitled:
>
> - Budget Process Strategic Planning Ad-Hoc Sessions 3
>
> - Budget Documents Structure and Content Ad Hoc Session 3
>
> - Budget Process Community Timeline Ad Hoc Session 3
>
>
>
> These sessions are a follow-up to the Ad Hoc session which ICANN Finance
> launched in Prague and which Tijani Ben Jemaa has attended on our behalf.
> Since then, two more sessions have been organized on-line, for each group
> (each group being composed of essentially the same people for the ALAC,
> that is Tijani Ben Jemaa and myself).
>
>
>
> The consultations are set to continue in Toronto. Tijani will attend a
> follow-up meeting on the Sunday in Toronto, on our behalf. At this stage, I
> think it would be good if all members of the ALAC Finance and Budget Sub
> Committee could discuss any comments they might wish Tijani to convey to
> the Ad Hoc WG, in addition to the comments he has already made.
>
>
>
> ICANN Finance is therefore asking for comments to be sent to them by 28
> September 2012. Tijani will formulate a text and circulate it. But you are
> also encouraged to raise comments in this forum if you think they should be
> included in our comments to ICANN Finance. Please send them as soon as
> possible, and certainly no later than 26 or 27 September to give Tijani
> time to integrate them if needed.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
>
> Analyse effectuée par AVG -  < http://www.avg.fr> www.avg.fr
>
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011
> La Base de données des virus a expiré.
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Finance-sc mailing list
> Finance-sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/finance-sc ****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
>
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011
> La Base de données des virus a expiré.****
>
>