Attendees: Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Darlene Thompson, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Charl Mok, Ganesh Kumar, Cintra Sooknanan
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Nathalie Peregrine, Silvia Vivanco
- Agenda was adopted.
- TBJ: For FY12 we had an additional request template to fill in. For FY13 they improved the system but making a model to evaluate all of the requests with the same metrics.
- The form was explained by TBJ
- TBJ: It is critical to note the timeline (how many years will the activity last), what is the expected cost, travel necessities, etc.
- The form was shared and the other participants viewed it.
- GK: I think this consistent, formalized process is a step in the right direction. It will give us the ability to compare requests from various individuals. However, there is stilla mystery over how requests are approved. We need to know how ICANN ranks these requests so we can submit requests that are more likely to be approved. I also think it will make the process much more effective.
- TBJ: This point was raised during the meeting. the CFO has insured us that they will tell us - should a project not be approved - why it was not approved.
- OCL: Are these documents completely finalized? Will they ask SOs and ACs to review them? How will use these documents - Staff, SOs/ACs, the Board, etc?
- TBJ: Finance will use these forms in their response to the community.
- OCL: Was the general consensus that these forms will work?
- TBJ: Yes, the general consensus was that these forms will work.
- TBJ: This process is better as it will also save time. Inside At-Large
- CLO: Is it the intention of the SOs and ACs to respond to Finance by returning the forms? Due to the competitive nature of between multiple requests from an SO/AC, how will finance determine which projects will be funded?
- TBJ: Projects that are more aligned with the tools are more likely to be approved.
- TBJ: There are new fields that are necessary for this form to fit our needs. I will send a request to the CFO and ask that certain fields be added.
- The group agreed with Tijani Ben Jemaa.
- HU: Staff will be happy to assist Tijani in the preparation of his questions.
- OCL: Regarding the success metrics, how will ICANN determine what success against its strategic plan is? Do we need to write something to prove out point? Is it mathematical?
- CLO: Qualitative rather than quantitative.
- TBJ: We ran out of time at the meeting and did not get to that point. For our projects, we we will need to write something.
- CLO: Do we need to align our projects with all of ICANN's strategic goals or just some of them?
- DT: There needs to be more categories on the form, it is too limited.
- TBJ: The categories are the four pillars of the strategic plan, we cannot expand them.
- OCL: Based on what we are seeing, it will be critical to have these forms completed in a timely manner.
AI: Tijani Ben Jemaa to develop the questions by Monday and send them to the group. The group will review the questions and follow up with Xavier Calvez.
AI: Staff to ask for an urgent translation and recording of this call. Staff are then to send these to Tijani Ben Jemaa.
- TBJ: I tried to make up several possibilities and I learned that if we do a summit every four years, we will have roughly the same cost as GA every 3 years and a Summit every 7 years. As such, i think it is better to ask for a meeting every four year as this will be easier for us and ICANN to be ready for.
- CLO: Tijani, can you please explain the pattern again?
- TBJ: My suggestion is that we have a summit every four years.
- CLO: Thank you, that is clear now.
- DT: I agree with Tijani, we need to show this cost effective model. I think we should have a mich better benefit in this scenario.
- OCL: We need to collect all of this information and send it to the mailing list for people to review.
