[WP1] Budget
Asha Hemrajani
asha.hemrajani at icann.org
Fri Oct 9 17:28:07 UTC 2015
Hi Jordan, Greg and Jonathan
I will attempt to address all your points in one email.
Re Jonathan¹s point yes we agree that the community must raise the issue
early and that is my point IF the issues are raised early, there would
be proper and sufficient consultation and this collaboration/co-operation
would be (as it has proven to be) successful.
What concerns me is phrases like ³IF the consultation process works² and ³IF
only we could find a way to co-operate² - these imply that the current
processes do not work. How do you know they don¹t work and that there was
no co-operation? Were any of you a part of the FY16 budget process?
Which brings me back to my earlier point. Why not enshrine the process of
coming to a consensus built budget why not enshrine the steps to ensure
³no breakdown of the input process² to use Greg¹s words.
If only we would use our collective energy to protect that instead of
enshrining the right to veto it in the end (no matter how remote), leaving
ICANN finances in limbo and potentially create fiscal havoc because we
cannot pay our employees or vendors? Why not take focus on drafting a
proposal which lists out steps to ensure the discipline that the process is
done correctly?
Jordan/Greg/Jonathan I hear where you are coming from re veto being a last
resort. Speaking on my own behalf, I am not commenting on vetos on other
itemsŠbut a veto on an annual budget which is so time sensitive and on such
a short cycle, can be catastrophic fiscally. I would shudder to think what
would happen if budget was vetoedŠI would rather work on text to ensure we
don¹t ever get to that stage.
Thank you.
Asha
From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Date: Saturday, 10 October 2015 1:04 am
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: 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
+540. "We are always only talking about last resorts here."
That should be written on the wall of every single meeting room the CCWG
uses in Dublin.
cheers
Jordan
On 10 October 2015 at 04:00, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that a substantial pre-budget input process with the community
> and the right to veto a budget are mutually exclusive. Rather, I see them as
> all part of the process.
>
> I believe that all of the powers we have contemplated should only be exercised
> when there has been a breakdown in an input process and attempts at resolution
> have been unsuccessful. We are always only talking about last resorts here.
>
> Our tendency to focus on last resorts should not be mistaken for a desire to
> resort to last resorts first.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani at icann.org>
> wrote:
>> 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-fy16-10nov
>> 14-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>
>>>> <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org%3E> > on behalf
>>>> of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
>>>> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn%3E> >
>>>> Date: dinsdag 6 oktober 2015 20:19
>>>> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org%3E> "
>>>> <wp1 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org%3E> >
>>>> 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 <tel:%2B%20216%2041%20649%20605>
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114>
>>>>
>>>> Fax: + 216 70 853 376 <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%20376>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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 <http://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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
A better world through a better Internet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151010/796924fc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WP1
mailing list