FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
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).
