[WP1] Budget

Asha Hemrajani asha.hemrajani at icann.org
Fri Oct 9 14:48:50 UTC 2015 

Hi Jonathan

Currently it is ³everyone¹s² preference ­ anyone and everyone who is willing
to review the budget and has an input can join us in the calls/webinars and
the f2f budget workshops (>1/2 day) to raise any issue they see fit.
No one is barred from attending, these meetings are widely publicized and
everyone is welcome.   Jonathan, please join me at the Dublin budget meeting
if you like.  

Yes issues should be raised early enough but not unnecessarily so ­  staff
need sufficient time to finalize the annual operating plan budget, publish
it by our annual deadline (mid year).  Just as in any other organization
that has employees, collects revenue and has costs.  We must have the means
and discipline to publish our final annual budgets on time or we would have
paralysis of the organization -  how would we pay the the ICANN staff or our
vendors eg meeting hotels/translation staff and and so on without having a
set budget to work to?

What Cherine is proposing is that this process is set in stone, in a manner
of speaking.  The rights for a community input process on the development of
the annual operating plan and budget will be enshrined.

In any case, going back to the point of my original email, I hope I have
clarified that we are already co-operating on the budget.   The budget
review process is a long one, with community participants and staff working
really hard to work through issues.  So Avri¹s email baffled me somewhat.


Asha

PS Congratulations on your wedding :-)


From:  Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org>
Date:  Friday, 9 October 2015 10:03 pm
To:  Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani at icann.org>, "avri at acm.org"
<avri at acm.org>, "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [WP1] Budget

The further development of this process is EVERYONE's preference and if it
works, we'll never need to use the buyer veto. The requirement that any
issue be raised early means the community can never go strait to this power
besides having no motive to do so. Treating these paths as somehow mutually
exclusive is a real mistake. They're a continuum of escalation that no one
hopes to traverse to the end.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Asha Hemrajani <mailto:asha.hemrajani at icann.org>
Sent: 10/9/2015 9:38 AM
To: avri at acm.org; wp1 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [WP1] Budget

Hi Avri

Re your comment below "Having said that, I do believe that the cooperation
between the board and community on the budget should be before it is
approved in, not after.   Overruling should not be the issue, but
cooperation.  If only we could find a way to cooperate.²

The fact is Avri ­ we DO co-operate BEFORE the budget is approved and not
afterŠwe most have certainly found a way to co-operate and it has been
operational for a while.  Tijani described the process very well in his
email below, let me repeat and describe in detail and would appreciate if
you could let me know if there is something you would like us to shed more
light on.

Xavier Calvez, the ICANN CFO, initiated a community consultation process for
the budget.  
Have a look at our published budget calendar which lists out the multiple
engagements the board + staff have with stakeholders on the FY15 budget
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/opplan-budget-calendar-fy16-10no
v14-en.pdf

1. Several meetings to discuss budget at each ICANN meeting (1 public
session + SO/AC specific meetings with updates + 3 webinars on average. In
Singapore for instance staff + board (myself) had a 4.5 hour meeting with 10
community members: Rudi Vansnick, Chuck Gomes, Paul Diaz, Marilyn Cade,
Tijani Ben Jemaa, Debbie Monahan, Giovanni Seppia (chair of CENTR), Jimson
Olufye, (sorry cannot remember the other 2).  For the FY16 process, we have
added 5 webinars to review public comments.
2. public comment period specifically on the budget
3. Significant changes made to the draft budget (based on the comments
received) in order to produce the final budget.

We will repeat this process in Dublin.
Avri, would welcome your inputs on this engagement process with the
community and help us understand why you believe we do not cooperate and how
we can improve.

Thank you.

Asha



On 8/10/15 10:15 pm, "Avri Doria" <wp1-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think that for many people, myself among them, the power to remove the
> Board is purely a symbolic power, hard to believe that it would ever be
> engaged.  We get marked as horrible people when we argue with the board,
> can you really imagine us rising up and voting them out?  I can't.
> 
> Having said that, I do believe that the cooperation between the board
> and community on the budget should be before it is approved in, not
> after.   Overruling should not be the issue, but cooperation.  If only
> we could find a way to cooperate.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 08-Oct-15 06:18, Roelof Meijer wrote:
>> Tijani,
>> 
>> Somewhere in June, I wrote on this subject:
>> 
>> "Like I said this morning: if the community has to have it¹s veto of
>> the budget legally enforced, the disconnect between the board and the
>> community is so complete, that the board would have to (be forced to)
>> resign. So there¹s no need at all for a condition that the mechanism
>> should deliver full authority on the budget."
>> 
>> 
>> I am still of that opinion. If the community has the (enforceable)
>> power to dismiss the board or part thereof, it has the ultimate power
>> to steer any (important) process
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Roelof
>> 
>> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
>> of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>>
>> Date: dinsdag 6 oktober 2015 20:19
>> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org
>> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [WP1] Budget
>> 
>> Jordan and all,
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> As promised during the last call, here is my take regarding the
>> community power about the budget:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> I notice that we are much more focusing on the Budget veto after its
>> adoption by the board than on the involvement of the community in the
>> budget development.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Since few years , Xavier formed a community ad hoc group to discuss
>> the budget preparation from the planning till the last public comment
>> period before transmitting the budget to the board for adoption. This
>> experience has been improved over the years and now, we have a very
>> good consultation process that makes the budget almost agreed on by
>> the community. By the way, the ad hoc group will have a workshop of
>> several hours in Dublin.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> I think that all of us wish that we will never meet the situation
>> where an adopted budget is rejected by the community; at least I do.
>> And to avoid such a situation, I proposed that we formalize the
>> current consultation, and make it part of the official budget
>> development process. I find it more important and more constructive to
>> strengthen this a priori involvement of the community in the budget
>> development. I know that it was mentioned in our second report, but
>> wasn¹t given the appropriate importance and wasn¹t elaborated with
>> sufficient details.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> I propose that our final report makes this a priori involvement of the
>> community the main path and the veto, that I hope we will get rid of,
>> the exceptional and ultimate  way.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>> 
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> 
>> Executive Director
>> 
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> 
>> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
>> 
>> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>> 
>> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> 
>> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le
>> logiciel antivirus Avast.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151009/637d09a5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the WP1 mailing list