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

tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org
Mon Oct 1 18:41:55 UTC 2012


Rinalia,

 

I modified the last paragraph to address your concern:

 

The ALAC believes that once the community additional projects submitted, the
interactions staff-community 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, the last interaction in April (as per the
timeline diagram in the document) being on the almost final draft of the
budget.  In this case, and only in this case, the public comments will not
be about gathering input for inclusion in the final Operating plan and
Budget, but will serve to request clarification and/or comments on process,
and provide ideas for improvements in the upcoming years.

 

Have a nice night.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

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 Rinalia
Abdul Rahim
Envoyé : samedi 29 septembre 2012 16:54
À : tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org
Cc : ICANN AtLarge Staff; Finance and Budget SubCommittee
Objet : Re: [Finance-sc] Draft ALAC comments on the Budget Process Proposal

 

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, < <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org>
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:[mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com]>
[mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com]

> *Envoyé :* samedi 29 septembre 2012 05:56 *À **:* 

>  <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn> 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, < <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>
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 :  <mailto:finance-sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
finance-sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:

>  <mailto:finance-sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
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> http://www.avg.fr>
<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  <mailto:Finance-sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Finance-sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org

>  <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/finance-sc>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/finance-sc ****

> 

> ** **

> ------------------------------

> 

> 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

 <mailto:Finance-sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Finance-sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org

 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/finance-sc>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/finance-sc

-----

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.



More information about the Finance-sc mailing list