[atrt2] One pager ICANN finances

[Alan Greenberg]

I tend to support Olivier on this, since the time 
between our making a decision and drafting a 
scope for the external body will pretty well 
overlap with a possibly radical change in 
practices. Lise is correct in that it might end 
up with useful information for staff, but I am 
not as sure it is a meaningful way to use our only external study.

Alan

At 20/05/2013 07:20 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:

>Dear Olivier,
>
>I know a lot of changes are being done at the 
>moment. When analysing finances you have to take 
>into account the changes that have been 
>implemented but also evaluate the methods that 
>are planned to be used, so I am not afraid of 
>the timing. Actually the focus from external 
>consultants could help ICANN staff evaluate the 
>new processes as they go along, which might be helpful.
>
>Best,
>Lise
>
>
>Fra: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com]
>Sendt: 20. maj 2013 11:05
>Til: Lise Fuhr
>Cc: atrt2 at icann.org
>Emne: Re: [atrt2] One pager ICANN finances
>
>Dear Lise,
>
>I can see a challenge with this study - which is 
>that we are dealing with moving goalposts at the 
>moment. The next round of ICANN Operating Plan & 
>Budget feedback has just started and this year, 
>the process is quite different from prior years 
>due to the new management & introduction of a 
>cross-matrix of cost centres thus breaking down 
>silos but introducing complexity at the budget 
>making level as well as bottom-up interaction with the community.
>Last week I took part in a Budget call with the 
>presentation of this year's budget. Whilst I 
>think that a lot of work has gone into the 
>communication and engagement aspect of the 
>process, a vital question was asked by 
>participants: how much of this draft budget is 
>frozen already? The answer was that 80-90% of it 
>was already frozen, exceptionally this year, due 
>to the late start. This shortness of time was 
>explained because last year's plans for budget 
>and strategic planning and framework cycles have 
>been replaced by this new system.
>
>In short, I am worried that we're taking a 
>snapshot of a process which is actually 
>undergoing a change and that snapshot will not 
>be a good reflection of the process at it will 
>be by the time our report will be drafted and 
>released. As in any work in progress, perhaps 
>would it be important to wait for the finished 
>article to be more ready? Open question to all.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Olivier
>On 19/05/2013 18:39, Lise Fuhr wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>A proposal for a study. Have a nice Sunday.
>
>Best,
>Lise
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>atrt2 mailing list
>
><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
>
>--
>
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>_______________________________________________
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130520/08cf8435/attachment.html>