ICANN Policy for Comment : http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12

Summary of AC/SO Budget Requests : http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf

Google Doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/114VVRkBq2kQKInfkgGWM3qhcXsUR6Bb17GXDhURYuyc/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CMjwrcII

Final statement:  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/16220548/AL-ALAC-ST-0611-1+ALAC+Statement+on+FY12+Operating+Plan+and+Budget+-+EN.pdf

Each RALO has been asked to summarize its own thoughts on the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget.  These summaries can be found on these pages:

AFRALO comment on Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget

APRALO comment on Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget

EURALO comment on Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget

LACRALO comment on Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget

NARALO comment on Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget

           ALAC Statement on the draft FY12 Operational Plan and Budget


The ALAC recognizes the great improvement within ICANN's operational planning and budget preparation processes, and highly appreciates the interaction that the staff has had with the community at all stages of that process.

As for the substance, the ALAC is glad that the draft FY12 Operational Plan and Budget has been presented with sufficient explanation and details in order to allow for deep discussion and comments.   

Nevertheless, the ALAC wants to make the following remarks:

1)  In the draft FY12 Budget and Strategic Plan, paragraph 4.7 regarding community support describes, comprehensively, the process of dealing with the additional service requests from ICANN constituencies, but it does not explain how these requests were treated and decided upon by the staff.

As far as At-Large is concerned, most of the limited resources allocated do not cover the projects applied for.  At-Large applied for these projects, not for money.  Hence, by replacing the funding pf a RALO General Assembly (GA) with six additional travel support slots will not, for example, allow the GA to be held.

And, yet, the links between the projects applied for and ICANN's Strategic Plan were clearly established in At-Large's proposals.  At-Large had even applied for some of these projects last year, when they met with wide support -- althought we were told that they would have a better chance to be funded in FY12 Budget.

Now, with the FY12 Budget in draft form, the ALAC is still asking for the funding of these same projects.  In addition, for those projects that can not be funded, we are asking for clear explanations of why they have been rejected or postponed.  Finally, we request a formal statement of when the non-funded projects will, in fact, be funded.     

2)  In paragraph 4.8 regarding policy development support, there is a provision allocating resources for the implementation of improvements requested by the ALAC, consisting, inter alias, of support during 2010-13 for one General Assembly (GA) for each of the five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs), held in conjunction with either an ICANN or key regional Internet stakeholder meeting in order to set priorities and develop strategies for improving participation, including capacity-building programs.

Since no support for GA was budgeted in the first year (FY11) of this period, At-Large had expected resources allocated for at least two GAs in FY12, but unfortunately none has, in fact, been funded in the current draft budget.

3)  The At-large Community was the only ICANN entity to specifically request funding to support the strategic objective of participation in Internet governance dialogues -- specifically in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

A workshop organized at the IGF by an ICANN community constituencies would have a much larger effect in showcasing the ICANN multi-stakeholder bottom-up process than would any official speech. The success of the AFRALO workshop held in Vilnius last year (without any ICANN support) demonstrates this clearly. The ALAC thinks that such request deserves to be funded.

4)  In the new gTLD program budget, we did not see any provision for the support of the applicants needing assistance in applying for and/or operating a new gTLD, as per ICANN Board resolution 20 made in Nairobi.  The ALAC thinks that a reasonable percentage of the application fees recovered by ICANN should be allocated to this support.

5)  Outreach plans, using media (e.g., podcasts to countries/jurisdictions without ALSes) were rejected, with the reasoning that any action should be deferred until the Public Participation Committee (PPC) has the opportunity to develop an overall outreach plan for all constituency and stakeholder groups. We strongly suggest that At-Large be included in the development of this overall outreach plan to ensure its success.

6)  The ICANN Developing Countries Summit is planned to take place in Dakar, during the ICANN 42nd International Meeting. While the ALAC welcomes such an initiative to promote the developing countries' participation in the ICANN process, and especially in its policy development, it notices that no financial provision has been dedicated to this very important event.  The ALAC believes that resources should be allocated to such an event, if this allocation has not already been made.  And if the allocation has been made, we would like to know which item within the draft budget includes it.  

7)  While the ALAC recognizes the ICANN efforts in the translation field to increase translated documents and maintain a multilingual ICANN blog, it notices with concern that no improvement in the interpretation field is expected.  The quality of the interpretation is sometimes unacceptable, and all the working groups are working in English only, which prevents the non-English speakers from participating.  The impact of such a situation is that these non-English speakers cannot fully participate in the policy development process. The ALAC considers this issue a priority for an international organization that boasts of being inclusive and multi-stakeholder with a bottom-up decision making system.

8)  The registry fees for the 18 existing gTLDs do not follow any rule and show an arbitrary way of charging registries.  Some do not pay the fixed fees, while others do not pay the per-transaction fees.  In addition, the value of the fixed and the per-transaction fees change from one registry to the next. For example, the dot com does not pay the per-transaction fees, while the dot cat (community TLD) pays the per-transaction fees at one of the highest rates ($1 per transaction), as well as the fixed fees. The ALAC does think that the community not-for-profit TLDs should be charged at a minimum rate, while the lucrative TLDs should be charged normally, according to well-defined rules. 

9)  Regarding the implementation of impact reporting, we have noted and appreciated the Impact Analysis pertaining to Deployment of DNSSEC in the Root Zone and the document summarizing the Impact of Root Zone Scaling.  As ICANN moves forward, we would recommend that ICANN consider additional types of impact reporting, such as the impact of ICANN’s policies on TLD growth in developing countries.

10  Finally, we appreciate the call to fine-tune the determination of the most appropriate level for the Reserve Fund, and we will tender comments on this topic at the earliest opportunity.

  • No labels


  1. Anonymous

    comments from Danny Younger:

    CONCERN #1:  Special Restricted Funds

    Per the organizational Articles of Incorporation, ICANN is organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes.  As such, it is required to operate pursuant to a set of obligations detailed within sections of the California Code, namely Part 2: NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS [5110 -6910].  Within that code (§ 6321) is the obligation to produce an annual financial report that shall contain in appropriate detail the following:

    (1) The assets and liabilities, including the trust funds, of the corporation as of the end of the fiscal year.

    (2) The principal changes in assets and liabilities, including trust funds, during the fiscal year.

    (3) The revenue or receipts of the corporation, both unrestricted and restricted to particular purposes, for the fiscal year.

    (4) The expenses or disbursements of the corporation, for both general and restricted purposes, during the fiscal year.

    As ICANN would not deliberately fall afoul of California law, and as ICANN has not reported on the disposition of funds restricted to particular purposes within its Annual Budget Report, one can only conclude that ICANN has never formally established special restricted funds.  This is a major concern for the at-large community in that ICANN has previously signaled its “intent” to establish special restricted funds that would accrue to the benefit of developing country stakeholders within clause 7.2 of the .net contract:

    Section 7.2  Fees to be Paid to ICANN.

    (a)  Registry-Level Transaction Fee. Commencing on 1 July 2005, Registry Operator shall pay ICANN a Registry-Level Transaction Fee in an amount equal to US$0.75 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another during the calendar quarter to which the Registry-Level Transaction Fee pertains. ICANN intends to apply this fee to purposes including: (a) a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders, (b) a special restricted fund to enhance and facilitate the security and stability of the DNS, and (c) general operating funds to support ICANN's mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the DNS.

    The collectible revenues from this single contract are far from insignificant.  By way of example, during the fiscal year 2006/7 these transaction revenues totaled $7,535,141 (of which – assuming equal disbursement -- $2,511,714 would have accrued in a special restricted fund to enable developing countries to participate in the ICANN mission).

    At issue is not whether ICANN has spent collected funds in an amount commensurate with purposes intended, but rather whether we can trust ICANN to keep its word when it declares intent to establish special restricted funds.

    Special restricted funds have a place with non-profit public benefit corporations that comport with strategic objectives.  They inure to specific projects and allow for greater overall transparency.

    It is the recommendation of the at-large that ICANN modify its current new gTLD Base Contract & Specifications to incorporate the following language:

    Registry-Level Transaction Fee. ICANN will apply one third of this fee to a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders.

  2. Anonymous

    CONCERN #2:  Open Entry in Internet-related Markets

    With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the U.S. Congress created a new legal and policy playing field based on the presumption that competition, open entry, and market forces should, when possible, "regulate" the telecommunications industry.  It is in view of this policy backdrop that we note this particular language in the ICANN Articles of Incorporation:

    The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets.

    While Open Entry is generally defined as the absence (or minimal application) of those provisions that would ordinarily regulate monopoly or near-monopoly situations, within the ICANN context “open entry” takes on a subtle new meaning that obliges the Board, whenever possible, to proactively reduce “barriers to entry”; it is within this context that the at-large community has issues with the ICANN Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget.

    A budget process can augment existing barriers to entry when key initiatives that are designed to reduce such barriers – such as the new gTLD Joint Applicant Support project [JAS] – are neither anticipated nor accounted for. 

    While the budget attends to New gTLD Launch Scenarios by detailing certain Final Development Activities, it nowhere references JAS recommendations (and their budgetary implications) either as detailed within Milestone Report #1 or within Milestone Report #2 nor the projected cost to implement the assorted recommendations.  

    While Staff has planned for some future expenses – such as recommending that $1.0 million be added to the contingency fund to ensure staff work and Board consideration of ATRT Recommendation #5 – it has not planned for JAS-related implementation costs that might be associated with the roll-out of new gTLDs.  This is a correctable oversight.

  3. Anonymous

    Concern #3:  RALO General Assembly Support

    The ICANN Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget states: 

    For the ALAC, during the period 2010--2013, support one General Assembly for each of the five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) held in conjunction with either an ICANN or key regional Internet stakeholder meeting in order to set priorities, develop strategies for improving participation, including capacity-building programs, and increase engagement, such as recruiting new At-Large Structures to achieve the goal of at least one At-Large Structure per country worldwide. These community support activities will contribute to a healthy Internet eco-system.

    We take note of the fact that the LACRALO formally advised ICANN that it intended to convene a General Assembly in 2012 by way of its application for travel funding.  ICANN’s Financial Team responded as follows:

    In order to facilitate ALAC's work, ICANN will allocate travel support for up to 6 regional participants, based on a plan from the At-Large on the selection process and the use of the ICANN Constituency Travel team for booking.

    In the knowledge that the LACRALO has three dozen member at-large structures (ALSs), the provision of funding for only 6 representatives is a far cry from the General Assembly “support” that the at-large community expects to be accorded.  Frankly, all members of our community view this particular ICANN decision as an unparalleled insult that must be addressed in the strongest of terms. 

    While ICANN has no qualms about fully supporting multiple registry-registrar gatherings throughout the course of the calendar year, it has chosen to only partially support this rarely-held at-large General Assembly initiative.  This decision egregiously violates the non-discriminatory treatment clause of the ICANN’s bylaws, and the at-large community will consider filing a formal Reconsideration Request to challenge this ill-considered staff action. 

  4. Anonymous

    Concern #4:  Funding of the Ombudsman’s Office

    Pursuant to the ICANN bylaws at Article V, Section 1, Paragraph 4:

    The annual budget for the Office of Ombudsman shall be established by the Board of Directors as part of the annual ICANN budget process.   The Ombudsman shall submit a proposed budget to the president, and the president shall include that budget submission in its entirety and without change in the general ICANN budget recommended by the ICANN president to the Board.

    Please note the underlined language.  The current ICANN Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget does not include the Ombudsman’s proposed budget in its entirety – in fact we don’t see it at all.  All we see is a number, $562,000, which appears to be far in excess of the amount that should be spent to provision an Ombudsman’s Office. 

    We point to the Statistical Analysis provided by Frank Fowlie – see http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/documents/stat-comparison-v4-aug06.pdf -- wherein in states:

    During the same relevant period the ICANN Ombudsman budgeted $183,000 for salary and $140,000 for operating expenses, totaling $325,000 (all Canadian Dollars – CAD). The ICANN Ombudsman under spent during this fiscal year by $40,000, total expended budget was $285,000.

    As the budget now (just a few years after the issuance of this report) is almost double this above-cited amount, we are of the view that something is either awry, or requires a greater degree of clarification. 

  5. Anonymous

    Concern #5:  Contingency Funding

    The at-large community notes that efforts are underway by several parties (including individual members of the ICANN Board, members of the Board’s Public Participation Committee, members of the GNSO and members of the ALAC) to plan a Developing Countries Summit to be held in Dakar, Senegal.  We remain unaware of the dollars that are being budgeted for this event or from where the funds will be pulled to support this initiative.  The at-large recognizes the need for periodic summits (including future at-large summits) to be accommodated as part of the budget planning process and we would recommend the permanent inclusion of a $500,000 placeholder within ICANN’s contingency funds to allow such events to manifest.

  6. Anonymous

    Concern #6:  Teleconference Interpretation Funding

    While the at-large notes that teleconference interpretation services have been budgeted at $150,000 and provide, as necessary, teleconference services for periodic constituency meetings, working groups, etc. to participants with real-time multi-language interpretation, we are duty-bound to report that this allocation is insufficient as it fails to accord with the growing needs of the at-large community.  We point to the recent denial of teleconference interpretation services to a Spanish-speaking member of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group as an example of ICANN’s short-sightedness.

  7. Anonymous

    Concern #7:  Overemphasis on the Reserve Fund


    In prior years, and up until the present moment, ICANN has declared that when the New gTLD Program is launched, some portion of the recovered historical costs included in application fees will be used to increase the Reserve Fund – we do not believe that the Reserve Fund should be the destination for these dollars; rather, a portion of the recovered historical costs should go to support financial assistance for worthy developing country new gTLD applicants.  We point to an observation cited in the New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum -- Cost Considerations of the New gTLD Program:


    some community members expressed concern that financial

    requirements and fees might discourage applications from developing nations, or indigenous and minority peoples, who may have different sets of financial opportunities or capabilities relative to more highly developed regions of the world. The ICANN

    Organization takes these concerns seriously, and can in the future explore possibilities for future means of financial assistance for or fee reductions to qualified applicants for new gTLDs in a consistent, fair, verifiable, and transparent manner. However, this goal must be balanced with the principle of conservatism that first-round fees must fully fund the first round application costs.

    As historical costs are part of the three base cost elements identified in the memorandum, and inasmuch as the JAS Milestone Report #2 has called for reductions in the base cost (“Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made”), it seems eminently reasonable to direct the recovered historical cost funds to a special restricted fund that would pragmatically allow the ICANN organization to take these concerns seriously.

  8. Anonymous

    Concern #8:  Expense Area Group Analysis


    The at-large community, with beggar’s bowl in hand, is thoroughly amused by the report that ICANN will be expending $5,427,000 in support of ALAC and at-large activities.  We are told that these funds cover:

    • Policy work and secretariat support for ALAC
    • Outreach efforts to regional organizations and global engagement
    • Translation of documents
    • Interpretation costs for meetings and conference calls
    • An allocation of overhead costs such as rent, human resources and accounting

    We would appreciate a more detailed accounting as, quite frankly, we do not trust these figures – in the aggregate they represent an expenditure that is almost equal to that which is accorded to collectively support Root Server Operations, to support RSSAC activities, to support SSAC activities and to support coordinating with Internet security efforts.  An explanation most clearly is in order.

  9. Anonymous

    Concern #9:  Preponderance of U.S.-based Office Space


    ICANN maintains five offices – one in Belgium, one in Australia, and three in the United States.  The at-large shares the view expressed by Director Subrenat in the Board discussion that related to the opening of the Palo Alto office that additional U.S.-based offices “send a contrary message to the ICANN community worldwide”.  Noting that the occupancy agreement for office space in MdR has a term that expires in June 2012, and that decisions will need to be reached regarding renewal or relocation, we ask the ICANN Board to explore the possibility of closing the MdR facility while opening a comparable new facility in a presently underserved ICANN geographical region.

  10. Anonymous

    Concern #10:  ICANN Staff Labor rates


    We are informed by June 2009 document entitled “Cost Analysis of IDN ccTLDs:  Focus on Program Development and Processing Costs” that “Labor rates for all ICANN staff were calculated to be $103 per hour. This is based on the total of all personnel costs including payroll, bonuses, retirement plans, employee insurance costs, and other related personnel costs such as recruiting and payroll services.”  This above-cited value translates into average ICANN Staff compensation of $214,240.  We view this amount as excessive.

    In the current budget, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel costs add up to $29,209,000 for an undisclosed number of FTEs (which presumably is now somewhere around 100).  This level of compensation does not appear to accord with normative levels as indicated by surveys of compensation in nonprofit organizations, but can be comprehended in light of the ICANN’s Board’s determination that “the appropriate comparator for ICANN staff compensation is the for‐profit marketplace of companies of a similar size and complexity” – see http://www.icann.org/en/financials/compensation-practices-31jan10-en.pdf

    While the at-large appreciates understanding the philosophy governing ICANN’s compensation practices, it does not agree with the Board’s determination as we have not noted levels of Staff service commensurate with such compensation levels.  To the contrary, we believe that excessive levels of compensation have led to a perverse culture of Staff disdain for the efforts of ICANN’s uncompensated volunteers and, even worse, have resulted in the naissance of a haughty attitude that “Staff is always right and Staff always knows best”.  This arrogance shines through in the new gTLD process and in the “rationales” provided to the SO/AC/SG communities by ICANN’s Financial Staff – see http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/pdfUNwycLKGih.pdf

  11. Anonymous

    Concern #11:  Inappropriate Travel Support


    The at-large community recognizes that intellectual property attorneys are highly compensated individuals.  Accordingly, we question the wisdom of ICANN Financial Staff choosing to subsidize travel support for two IPC officers to attend three ICANN meetings at a cost of $30,000 while travel funding is routinely denied to less-advantaged members of the at-large community.

  12. Anonymous

    Concern #12:  Pettiness


    We in the at-large community recall the receipt of $1,000 in seed money from Pindar Wong, the receipt of a domain name donated by Jefsey Morfin, the receipt of a $10,000 pledge from former ICANN Board Chairman Esther Dyson and the support and pledges from at-large members around the world that participated in the ALSC email forum who helped to launch, with intrepid help from Joop Teernstra, the icannatlarge.com website.

    The at-large has always appreciated the value of having a domain name, and the recent NARALO request to have a NARALO website created and maintained was not viewed by anyone in the at-large world as an unreasonable request.  Rather than agreeing with this reasonable and low cost funding request, or settling upon an even lower negotiated amount for such an effort, ICANN’s Financial Staff decided to arbitrarily reject the request in order to goad the NARALO into continued participation within the Confluence Wiki slum. 

    This callous attitude does not sit well with us.  You will recall that ICANN Staff conducted a survey of proposed constituency services for a GNSO Toolkit.  Ranked number 5 in importance to the GNSO community was “Constituency web site hosting and content maintenance (i.e. keeping site up to date with relevant documents and information)” – see http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/tool-kit-services-recommendations-for-gnso-05nov09-en.pdf.

    In response to this articulated need, ICANN Staff wrote:

    “Website Hosting and Content Maintenance”  -- An up-to-date community web presence can be a valuable mechanism for sharing news, archiving information and providing outreach to a broad population of existing and potential members.   Collective community discussions to review how community websites might be integrated, re-themed for consistency, and, possibly hosted and/or maintained by Staff in the future will follow after it is clear how many groups intend to request this support.



    Far from rejecting the notion, ICANN Policy Staff was willing to proceed with Toolkit services that included website hosting and content maintenance.  Why then is that which is acceptable in principle to ICANN Policy Staff cavalierly dismissed by ICANN’s Financial Staff?  This is pettiness at its worst.

  13. Anonymous


    Wile the draft ALAC Statement attends to immediate at-large concerns, I believe that we should be looking at the larger picture.  ICANN's Finance Team has posed the following questions regarding the Reserve Fund:

    "Plans are being considered to fine-tune the determination of the most appropriate level for the Reserve Fund. Questions being considered include: What should the Reserve Fund cap be set at? Should it be a rolling or fixed cap? What types of black swan emergencies should be anticipated? What core operations would need to be funded if other resources are not available? Should Security or New gTLD programs pull from the Reserve Fund and then replenish when other sources become available? Community feedback is encouraged to address such questions."

    As the Reserve Fund (currently at $52,000,000+) might allow for support of both core operations and emergencies, and if other programs such as New gTLD might be entitled to pull from the Reserve Fund, it would seem to be appropriate for the at-large to offer a substantive recommendation on (1) programs entitled to draw upon the Reserves, and (2) on emergency and other considerations.

  14. Anonymous


    an additional comment from Danny.  ICANN's Finance Team has noted:  "This FY12 budget proposal is designed to balance competing priorities including the necessary funding for key FY12 initiatives, and balancing revenue levels from contracted and volunteer contribution sources."  As long as we are in a competition for resources, I believe that we should clearly be articulating why at-large is due a larger slice of the pie in light of strategic objectives.  As an example, in light of the pending new gTLD rollout and the emphasis on strategic support for developing country initiatives, we could ask for a re-examination of the New gTLD Communications Budget to ensure that sufficient funds for communication in developing country native languages are available -- the Strategic Plan lists "Increased TLD options in more languages" as a bullet point.  We might ask ICANN to revisit the policy that identifies the languages into which documents will be translated (if a case can be made that other developing country languages need to be added into the mix at this juncture).  Additionally, you may want to note the incongruity between the Strategic plan objective to "Participate in Internet governance dialogues including Internet Governance Forum (IGF)" and the denial of such funding to AFRALO that sought to participate in the FY12 upcoming Nairobi IGF.

  15. Anonymous

    submitted by Danny

    Revised ALAC Statement on the draft FY12 Operational Plan and Budget


    The at-large community wishes to extend its appreciation to the ICANN Finance Staff and to the ICANN Board for this opportunity to comment on the degree to which the Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget currently comports with the strategic projects, objectives and community work goals delineated in the July 2010 to June 2013 ICANN Strategic Plan. At this juncture the At-Large notes its concern on the following topics:

    Strategic Projects:

    •Participate in Internet governance dialogues including Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

    •Implement impact reporting

    •Efforts to meet commitments

    Strategic Objectives:

    •All stakeholders have a voice

    •Improved accountability and transparency

    Identified Community Work:

    •Increasing participation

    Regarding ICANN-identified strategic projects, we wish to call the Board’s attention to the fact that the at-large community was the only ICANN entity to specifically request funding in support of the strategic objective calling for participation in Internet governance dialogues (specifically the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – requests were tendered by both the APRALO and LACRALO – those requests were denied.

    Regarding the implementation of impact reporting, we have noted and appreciated the Impact Analysis pertaining to Deployment of DNSSEC in the Root Zone and the document summarizing the Impact of Root Zone Scaling.  As ICANN moves forward, we would recommend that ICANN consider additional types of impact reporting such as the impact of ICANN’s policies on TLD growth in developing countries. 

    Regarding efforts to meet commitments, we note the unfulfilled intent declared in clause 7.2 of the .NET contract to establish a special restricted fund.  We are of the view that special restricted funds have a proper role within non-profit public benefit corporations as they support strategic objectives, inure to specific projects and allow for greater overall transparency.

    On the topic of strategic objectives, we support the proposition that all stakeholders have a voice and wish to call to ICANN’s attention the fact that while contracted parties have been granted the benefit of multiple “gatherings” per year, the at-large continues to be denied the appropriate level of funding required to support the regional at-large General Assemblies.  Fairness dictates a change in the pattern of resource allocation.

    Regarding improved accountability and transparency, inasmuch as the ALAC Review called for the establishment of a negotiated annual at-large support agreement, and in that greater specificity in Expense Area reporting will better serve the needs of multiple communities, we ask the Board to direct Staff to initiate such an agreement and to augment their Expense Area reporting.

    As it pertains to community work objectives, we are of the view that the laudable goal of increasing participation has been hampered by qualitative and quantitative insufficiencies in the provisioning of language services; we would ask that the budget for this category be significantly increased to meet the recognized demand.

    Finally, we appreciate the call from ICANN Finance to fine-tune the determination of the most appropriate level for the Reserve Fund, and we will tender comments on this topic at the earliest opportunity.

    1. I actually prefer this one (the revised statement).

      For example, it is way to coy to say the at-large is requesting "projects", not funding!!


  16. Here are two small points for inclusion:

    1. During the San Francisco meeting Staff said that multi-year proposals would be treated if is approved in the first year as being approved for subsequent years. For example LACRALO GA was proposed as being multi-year (with one each year focusing on a different topic), so the natural assumption is that Staff is suggesting that we can only anticipate 6 travel slots for a GA will be provided for the next 4 years (FY12-16).

    2.  Outreach plans, using media eg. podcasts to countries/jurisdictions without ALSes, were rejected with the reasoning that any action be deferred until the PPC (Public Participation Committee) has the opportunity to develop an overall Outreach plan for all constituency and stakeholder groups. We strongly suggest that At-Large is included in the development of this overall Outreach plan to ensure its success.

    I like the detail of Tijani's statement, but do feel it would be beneficial for Danny's comments to be included.