AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 

Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update

ADOPTED 13Y, 0N, 0A

Tijani Ben Jemaa

    TBC
Xavier Calvez controller@icann.org
AL-ALAC-ST-0416-03-01-EN

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

 

Brief Overview

Purpose:

Focusing on ICANN's commitment to the multistakeholder model, ICANN's Draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and an associated update to the Five-Year Operating Plan & Financial Model is provided for community discussion and public comment. ICANN seeks structured feedback on the plan described in these two linked documents. They reflect FY16's planned accomplishments toward the Five-Year Strategic Plan, which was adopted by the Board in October 2014. They also incorporate refinements based on regular interaction with the ICANNCommunity.

Current Status:

These two draft documents have been prepared and published for public review and comment. An overview will be presented at a High Interest Topic session during ICANN55 in March 2016.

Next Steps:

A report on the comments received will be prepared during May. After incorporating changes based on suggestions and comments, the Board will be invited to adopt the Plan at ICANN56 in June 2016.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

ICANN seeks structured feedback on the plan described in these two linked documents. They reflect FY16's planned accomplishments towards the Five-Year Strategic Plan (adopted by the Board in October 2014) and refinements based on regular interaction with the ICANNCommunity.

Section II: Background

ICANN's planning process consists of a continuous cycle of three planning components: Strategic Plan, Five-Year Operating Plan, and Fiscal-Year Operating Plan & Budget.

  • ICANN's Strategic Plan [PDF, 1.65 MB] was developed with community input and is updated every five years. The Strategic Plan shapes our priorities, informs our budget and drives our activities. ICANN's Strategic Plan for FY16-FY20 was adopted by the Board and published on 14 October 2014.
  • ICANN's Five-Year Operating Plan was developed with community input and is updated each year. It contains a Five-Year Planning Calendar, a Financial Model, and at the Goal level:
    • corresponding Key Performance Indicators
    • Risks, Five-Year Phasing
    • and a list of Portfolios
  • ICANN's Fiscal-Year Operating Plan & Budget is developed based on the Five-Year Operating Plan along with input from the community.

The cycle completes with Achievement & Progress Reporting.

Following the adoption of the FY16-FY20 Strategic Plan in October 2014, ICANN staff developed and consulted on a Draft Five-Year Operating Plan, which was adopted by the Board in June 2015.

Section III: Relevant Resources

FY17's Draft planning documents:

Supporting documents:

Contextual information:

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Xavier Calvez
controller@icann.org

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download the PDF below.

 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) reviewed the draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, and found it generally well done, with more clarity compared to the ones in previous years. We especially appreciate the planning process that has evolved year over year. We do hope that for the upcoming years, there will be more interaction with the community at all steps of the operating plan and budget development.

That being said, the ALAC has identified a number of areas that need further clarification:

In the draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, it is considered that the PTI is established to carry out the IANA naming function only, and that there will be an IANA department in ICANN, different from the PTI, to carry out the other two IANA functions (numbering and protocol parameters). This is not consistent with what is proposed in the CWG-Stewardship Final Report. However, the ALAC understands that since the publication of the Draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, this issue has been discussed with the CWG Implementation Oversight Task Force and that the plan and budget will be fully aligned with the CWG-Stewardship Final Report, with PTI assuming all three roles.

Regarding the item “Community Support Request” in section 3.1, there is no figures provided in the FY16 Forecast section, as they have been allocated to the expense categories based on the nature of the request. Since the table is intended to provide a side-by-side comparison between the FY16 Forecast and the FY17 Draft Budget (estimated at $0.6M for “Community Support Requests”), it would be better to include the FY16 figures in the table for the comparison purpose.

Regarding the new gTLD Program variance analysis in section 5.3, we may notice that for FY14, the prior estimated revenues (March 2015) are different from the current estimated ones (February 2016). Since FY14 ended on 30 June 2014, much earlier than March 2015, the actual revenues should be available now. Hence, those figures should be replaced by the actual amount, like what is done for FY12 and FY13.  If, for whatever reason, the revenue for a year long past is still changing, it should be explained.  

As for the “Support Operations”, which is defined as the various programs and projects that support functional operations, the ALAC would like to see these programs and projects in detail especially because their cost is quite significant ($22.1M). 

Two tables in the document show year-to-year changes not only in absolute numbers but as percentages (section 3.2, page 14 and appendix C, page 79). We suggest that all year-to-year tables and tables showing predicted vs actual figures should include percentages in addition to the absolute values. Percentages make it far easier to recognize and home in on major variations, and it is often these on which we need to focus our attention.

Finally, the ALAC is submitting, under separate cover, a proposal to integrate multiyear planning for At-Large General Assemblies and Summit meetings into the ICANN operating plan & budget instead of using community special budget support and ad hoc requests.

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) reviewed the draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, and find it in general well done, with more clarity compared to the previous years. We especially appreciate the planning process that evolved year over year. We do hope that for the upcoming years, there will be more interaction with the community at all steps of the plan and budget development.

That’s said, the ALAC would like to make the following remarks:

As for the community Support Request, the table on page 11 doe not give any information since it is comparing the $0.6M FY17 estimation to nothing; the FY16 Forecast has been allocated to the expense categories based on the nature of the request. It would be better to reconstitute it and put it in the table for the comparison purpose.

In the draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, it is considered that the PTI is there for the IANA naming function only, and that there will be an IANA department in ICANN other than the PTI that will be in charge of the 2 other IANA Functions (Numbering and Protocol Parameters). To the best of our knowledge, this is not accurate. 

Regarding the new gTLD Program variance analysis, we may notice that for FY14, the prior estimated revenues (March 2015) are different from the current estimated ones (February 2016), while FY14 ends on 30 June 2014, much before the date of March 2015. Thus, the prior and current estimation should be both equal to the actual amount. 

The ALAC do not know for what reason it was allocated $0.3M for travel and meetings related to Strategic and Operational Planning. 

As for the “Support Operations” defined as the various programs and projects that support functional operations, the ALAC would prefer to see these programs and projects detailed especially because their cost is quite important ($22.1M).

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Alan Greenberg

    In the draft FY17 Operating Plan & Budget, it is considered that the PTI is there for the IANA naming function only, and that there will be an IANA department in ICANN other than the PTI that will be in charge of the 2 other IANA Functions (Numbering and Protocol Parameters). To the best of our knowledge, this is not accurate.

    This is a substantive issue, but one that is already resolved, and we should identify it, but note that this issue has been reviewed by the CWG implementation group and ICANN staff has agreed that PTI will indeed cover all three functions with appropriate changes to the budget. This issue should lead the list because it is not a minor issue.

    The other issues being raised are relatively minor and the comment should reflect that we understand that. Perhaps replace the intro sentence with: "The ALAC has identified a number of areas which need further clarification or clarity:"

    As for the community Support Request, the table on page 11 doe not give any information since it is comparing the $0.6M FY17 estimation to nothing; the FY16 Forecast has been allocated to the expense categories based on the nature of the request. It would be better to reconstitute it and put it in the table for the comparison purpose.

    This table is on page 10 in my copy.

    Regarding the new gTLD Program variance analysis, we may notice that for FY14, the prior estimated revenues (March 2015) are different from the current estimated ones (February 2016), while FY14 ends on 30 June 2014, much before the date of March 2015. Thus, the prior and current estimation should be both equal to the actual amount.

    I don't know the reason for the difference. Perhaps it is bad debts. The recommendation should be that if the revenue for a year long past is still changing, it should be explained.

    The ALAC do not know for what reason it was allocated $0.3M for travel and meetings related to Strategic and Operational Planning.

     Where is this from? I cannot locate it?

    I would suggest one additional comment:

    Two tables in the document show year-to-year changes not only in absolute numbers but as percentages (on pages 14 and 79). We suggest that all year-to-year tables and tables showing predicted vs actual figures should include percentages in addition to the absolute values. Percentages make it far easier to recognize and home in on major variations, and it is often these on which we need to focus our attention.

     

    We need a short paragraph in this comment saying that the ALAC is submitting under separate cover, a proposal to integrate At-Large multiyear planning for its General Assemblies and Summit meetings into the ICANN operational plan and budgets instead of using community special budget support and ad hoc requests.

     

  2. Holly Raiche

    I agreewith Alan - we should put something in that refers to our statement on General Assemblies and Summit meetings.  Otherwise, I am happy with the statement (as commented on by Alan)