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

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Tue Oct 2 13:55:25 UTC 2012


Thank you, Tijani.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:41 AM, <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org> wrote:

> 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****
>
> *M*editerranean* F*ederation of *I*nternet *A*ssociations****
>
> 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, <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.********
>
> >** **
>
> >** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> 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.****
>


More information about the Finance-sc mailing list