[WP1] Budget

James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
Fri Oct 9 17:33:02 UTC 2015 

Asha this is an excellent analysis, and could be considered complete if it wasn’t for the fact that we have a strict CWG requirement to have a budget veto/approval process. We cannot get away from that requirement. I agree that a cooperative budget process is something that should be enshrined into the by-laws but in order to fulfil our mandate from the CWG we need to also have a budget approval/rejection mechanism.

-James

From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org<mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Asha Hemrajani
Date: Friday 9 October 2015 at 6:28 p.m.
To: Jordan Carter, Greg Shatan
Cc: "avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>", "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>"
Subject: Re: [WP1] Budget

Hi Jordan, Greg and Jonathan

I will attempt to address all your points in one email.

Re Jonathan’s 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 “IF the consultation process works” and “IF only we could find a way to co-operate” - these imply that the current processes do not work.  How do you know they don’t 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 “no breakdown of the input process” to use Greg’s 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 items…but 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 vetoed…I would rather work on text to ensure we don’t ever get to that stage.

Thank you.

Asha


From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: Saturday, 10 October 2015 1:04 am
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani at icann.org<mailto:asha.hemrajani at icann.org>>, "avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>, "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:asha.hemrajani at icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Jonathan

Currently it is “everyone’s” 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 Avri’s email baffled me somewhat.


Asha

PS Congratulations on your wedding :-)


From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>>
Date: Friday, 9 October 2015 10:03 pm
To: Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani at icann.org<mailto:asha.hemrajani at icann.org>>, "avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>, "wp1 at icann.org<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:avri at acm.org>; wp1 at icann.org<mailto: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.”

The fact is Avri – we DO co-operate BEFORE the budget is approved and not after…we 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-fy16-10nov14-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<mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
avri at acm.org<mailto: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 it’s 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 there’s 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><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><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><mailto:wp1 at icann.org%3E>" <wp1 at icann.org<mailto: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
wasn’t given the appropriate importance and wasn’t 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<mailto: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<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org<mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1



_______________________________________________
WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20151009/6efed8d1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the WP1 mailing list