Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <2030128671.2099.1710846394015@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_2098_1703979748.1710846394013" ------=_Part_2098_1703979748.1710846394013 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Comment= /Reply Periods (*)= sup> |
Importa=
nt Information Links |
Comment Open: |
1 May 2= 012 |
Comment Close: |
24 May = 2012 |
Close Time (UTC): |
23:59 U= TC |
Reply Open: |
25 May = 2012 |
Reply Close: |
15 June= 2012 |
Close Time (UTC): |
23:59 U= TC |
Brief O= verview |
|
Originating Organization: |
ICANN&n= bsp;Finance |
Categories/Tags: |
|
Purpose (Brief): |
ICANN&n= bsp;is now opening a public comment forum for the draft Operating Plan an= d Budget for fiscal year 2013[PDF= , 3.28 MB]. Community members are kindly asked to provide feedback on the v= arious aspects of the proposed budget and implementation of ICA= NN resources for the coming fisc= al year, including operational growth tied to carry-over and new projects a= nd the core functions of ICANN. |
Current Status: |
The Fra= mework of the FY13 Budget was posted on 17 January 2012 for community feedb= ack through online public comment and during sessions held in Costa Rica th= is past March. The comments received and the summary analysis, and proposed= responses to those comments, can be found here:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comme= nt/op-budget-fy2013-17jan12-en.htm. This FY13 draft Operating Plan and Budget has incorporated the previous = public comments, as well as input from ICANNStaff and Board. |
Next Steps: |
The FY1= 3 draft Operating Plan and Budget will be modified as a result of feedback = from the community,ICANN's sta= ff and Board during this comment period, and will be presented to the = ICANN Board for final app= roval at ICANN 44 in= Prague, 24-29 June 2012. |
Staff Contact: |
Xavier = Calvez, CFO |
Email: |
<= a class=3D"external-link" href=3D"mailto:controller@icann.org?subject=3DMor= e%20information%20on%20the%20ICANN%20Draft%20FY13%20Operating%20Plan%20and%= 20Budget%20public%20comment%20period" rel=3D"nofollow">controller@icann.org |
Detaile= d Information |
|
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose |
The bud= get process and its outcome formalized in this document aims at establishin= g a detailed, documented description of the operational activities of the c= oming fiscal year and their financial impacts. The budget needs to be built= with sufficient details to allow an adequate monitoring of activities duri= ng the year, while understanding the flexibility that is required to handle= a reality that is always different than what was anticipated. Consistent w= ith our multi-stakeholder model, this budget is the result of input fromICANN constituency groups, s= takeholders, the Board of Directors and the ICANN Staff. The involvement of the various = span>ICANNstakeholders in the operati= ng plan and budget building process is a corner stone to the success of the= multi-stakeholder model. |
Section II: Background |
The Fra= mework for the FY13 Operating Plan and Budget was posted 17 January 2012 fo= r initial input into the FY13 Budget planning process. Community consultati= ons were held via webinars and face to face meetings in Costa Rica, March 2= 012. |
Section III: Document and Resource Links |
|
Section IV: Additional Information |
None |
1st Draft Statement on Wiki page: 24-May-2012
Call for comments closing time: 31-May-2012
2nd Draft (final) Statement to be designed
ALAC Vote starts: 5-=
June-2012
Vote reminder on: 8-June-2012
ALAC=
Vote ends: 11-June-2012
Statement to be submitted: 4-June-2012
ALAC Statement on t= he draft FY13 Operational Plan and Budget
(First draft)
The ALAC recognizes the continuous improvement in the Operating Plan and= Budget establishment with more consultation with the community and a new e= valuation model for the community additional request for funding.
The ALAC further recognizes that the level of detail in the budget prese= ntation is now enhanced, and the explanations given allow its deep analysis= and discussion. The separation of the stakeholder projects from the new gT= LD readiness, the policy support, the community support, and the global eng= agement activities represents one example of the so-called enhancement.
Regarding the IDN program, the ALAC find it important to make use as muc= h as possible of the community members=E2=80=99 expertise that brings the l= inguistic source knowledge, which would minimize hiring external experts. T= he variant studies done by the 6 voluntary community member groups showed h= ow useful the contribution of the community members can be. Besides, it may= decrease drastically the program cost.
The ALAC believes that being part of the new gTLD application process, T= AS, Digital Archery, and other system security of the new gTLD shouldn=E2= =80=99t be counted in the core operation and project component of the budge= t, but in the new gTLD budget.
The ALAC welcomes the improvement in the interaction with the constituen= cies regarding the community additional requests. Nevertheless, the rejecti= on of the projects planned in a non-ICANN event seems to be arbitrary, and = yet, it could be considered as an outreach and communication operation sinc= e it would showcase the ICANN community work in the Internet ecosystem.
The ALAC notices with great satisfaction that ICANN will participate in = the upcoming IGF differently, making use of its community initiatives. The = coordination between ICANN management and the concerned constituencies for = the preparation of the ICANN participation in such an event seems to the AL= AC of great importance. The community workshops during the IGF, as sub= stantive contribution gives to ICANN a significant visibility th= at has a great impact on its image.
Building on the successful experiences of AFRALO and LACRALO capacity bu= ilding programs held in Dakar and San Jos=C3=A9 respectively, the planned p= rograms for Toronto and Asia Pacific (TBD) in FY 2013 show the receptivity = and reactivity of the ICANN management to those fruitful activities lead by= the At-Large community. ALAC expresses its satisfaction and its commitment= to make the budgeted programs successful and fruitful for the community an= d for ICANN as well.
On the other hand, the ALAC finds it abnormal that the global revenue of= the Ombudsman increases by more than 28% because of an additional administ= rative cost for renting an office and the associated expenses.
The ALAC reiterates its concern about the huge disparity in the registry= fees. They do not follow any rule and show an arbitrary way of charging th= e 18 existing gTLDs registries: some do not pay the fixed fees, others do n= ot pay the per transaction fees, and the value of the fixed and the per tra= nsaction fees changes from a registry to another. We can notice that dot co= m does not pay the per transaction fees while the dot cat (community TLD) p= ays the per transaction fees at one of the highest rate ($ 1 per transactio= n) as well as the fixed fees.
Now that new gTLDs will be accredited, the ALAC does think that the comm= unity not for profit TLDs should be charged at a minimum rate while the res= t of all TLDs should be charged uniformly according to well-defined rules= p>
As for the ICANN offices, the ALAC notices that they a= re mainly located in North America. ALAC believes that if a Regional O= ffice network is required to effectively serve a global community and the s= trategic objectives and activities of ICANN, then a plan for such (inclusiv= e of a review of and rationalization for location and operation /staffing o= f existing offices and requirements such as outreach and the work of Global= Partnership and the ACs and SOs), should be undertaken to ensure an = effective, efficient, appropriate, regionally balanced and properly resourc= ed and coasted global offices network and we assume supported by the = ICANN community and stakeholders.
The ALAC welcomes the continuous improvement in the Operating Plan and B= udget establishment with more consultation with the community and a new eva= luation model for the community additional request for funding.
The ALAC further recognizes that the level of detail in the budget prese= ntation is now enhanced, and the explanations provided allow for a deeper a= nalysis and discussion. The separation of the stakeholder projects from the= new gTLD readiness, the policy support, the community support and the glob= al engagement activities represents one example of those enhancements.
Regarding the IDN program, the ALAC find it important to make use as muc= h as possible of the expertise of community members who bring linguistic so= urce knowledge, which would minimize hiring external experts. The variant s= tudies done by the six voluntary community member groups showed how useful = the contribution of the community members can be. Use of this resource may = decrease drastically the program cost.
The ALAC believes that being inherent parts of the new gTLD application = process, the TAS, the Digital Archery and the other system security of the = new gTLD should not be counted in the core operation and project component = of the budget, but in the new gTLD budget.
The ALAC welcomes the improvement in the interaction with the constituen= cies regarding the community additional requests. Nevertheless, the rejecti= on of the projects planned in a non-ICANN event seems to be arbitrary. Inst= ead, this could be considered as an outreach and communication operation si= nce it would showcase the ICANN community work in the wider Internet ecosys= tem.
The ALAC notices with great satisfaction that ICANN will participate in = the upcoming IGF differently and more effectively, making use of its commun= ity initiatives. The community workshops during the IGF directly involving = ICANN communities give ICANN a significant visibility that has a great impa= ct on its image. Workshops at IGF provide a substantial input to IGF procee= dings. The ALAC therefore believes that the coordination between ICANN mana= gement and the concerned constituencies for the preparation of the ICANN pa= rticipation in such an event is of great importance.
Building on the successful experiences of AFRALO and LACRALO capacity bu= ilding programs held in Dakar and San Jos=C3=A9 respectively, the planned p= rograms for Toronto and Asia Pacific (TBD) in FY 2013 show the receptivity = and reactivity of the ICANN management to those fruitful activities led by = the At-Large community. The ALAC expresses its satisfaction and its commitm= ent to make the budgeted programs successful and fruitful for the community= and for ICANN as well.
On the other hand, the ALAC finds it abnormal that the global revenue of= the Ombudsman increases by more than 28% because of an additional administ= rative cost for renting an office and the associated expenses.
The ALAC reiterates its concern about the huge disparity in the registry= fees. They do not follow any rule and show an arbitrary way of charging th= e 18 existing gTLDs registries: some do not pay the fixed fees, others do n= ot pay the per-transaction fees, and the amount of the fixed and the per-tr= ansaction fees changes from a registry to another. We can notice that dot c= om does not pay the per-transaction fees while the dot cat (community TLD) = pays the per-transaction fees at one of the highest rate ($ 1 per transacti= on) as well as the fixed fees.
Now that new gTLDs will be accredited, the ALAC advises that the communi= ty not for profit TLDs should be charged at a minimum rate while the rest o= f all TLDs should be charged uniformly according to well-defined rules.
On the subject of ICANN offices, the ALAC notices that they are mainly l= ocated in North America. The ALAC believes that if a Regional Office networ= k is required to effectively serve a global community and the strategic obj= ectives and activities of ICANN, then a plan for such (inclusive of a revie= w of and rationalization for location and operation/staffing of existing of= fices and requirements such as outreach and the work of Global Partnership = and the ACs and SOs), should be undertaken to ensure an effective, efficien= t, appropriate, regionally balanced and properly resourced and coasted glob= al offices network and we assume supported by the ICANN community and stake= holders.
--- statement end ---
1st Draft Statement on Wiki page: 24-May-2012 Call for Comments: 24-May-2012 (both to ALAC & to Finance & Budget = sub-committee) Call for comments closing time: 31-May-2012 2nd Draft (final) Statement to be designed: 31-May-2012 until 4-June-2012. ALAC Vote starts: 5-June-2012 Vote reminder on: 8-June-2012 ALAC Vote ends: 11-June-2012 Statement to be submitted: 4-June-2012