- Attendees: Tijani Ben Jemaa (TBJ), Xavier Calvez (XC), Alan Greenberg (AG), Darlene Thompson (DT), Dev Anand Teelucksingh (DAT), Olivier Crepin-Leblond (OCL), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO), Gareth Shearman (GS), Ganesh Kumar (GK); Cintra Sooknanan (CS)
- Apologies: Sylvia Herlein Leite, Sergio Salinas
- Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie Peregrine
NOTES
- Roll call was held
- OCL gave background information
- TBJ provided additional details on this background info
- XC: The duration in itself simply needs to note how long it is, the recurrence simply gives additional details on this. While it may be helpful t formalize this, we usually understand if it is recurrent or not. But formalizing it would help.
- XC: I will go back to the team so each year's cost can be broken down
- XC: The more priorities that a request meets, the stronger the value of the request
- XC: It is more significant that a request meet a priority in that year's budget, rather than just meets priorities
- GK: Whatever we put in place, will increase transparency. 1) The last time we spoke to you, you confirmed that ICANN has a tendency to support consistent items. However, ALAC has requests that does not meet this criteria. As such, can we have a commitment on a base level budget so a to plan activities accordingly? 2) When you mentioned that it does not matter how many boxes are checked but how the requests align with that year's priorities, my question is who ranks the priorities? How decided if it is aligned? How do they do so? Can you tell us how this is decided so we don't just fill out the requests mechanically. 3) If i were to model the request, am I to assume that everything carries equal weight? If we know, ALAC can align its requests more appropriately.
- XC: Re: #1 - yes, we can discuss this.
- XC: Re: #2 - we should have a third party, someone who is unbiased look at it and try to provide their view on alignment.
- GK: To clarify, this is volunteer time and some of these requests will not be approved as they do not align to the priorities. We just need to have better knowledge of what are the priorities so we can filter out requests. Why sent 20 request if only 5 will actually align with the priorities? We should not waste volunteer time. To be clear, the process can be improved if there is a ranking model, or methodology, and we know what it is.
- XC: if you do not think that the ALAC activities are not fully addressed within those 4 pillar, I am concerned. Those pillars were built to define the pillars. Can you please clarify your question.
- CLO: Let's assume that whatever the project is, fits into a healthier internet eco system.
- AG: There seems to be circular reasoning - unless it has been funded in the past we will not fund it in the future. This is dangerous reasoning. The idea itself is important. You should encourage innovation, not discourage it.
- OCL: Regarding the roadmap, you mentioned that you had looked at it and it shows our forecast for the next few years. Can you please speak on this?
- XC: I want to make sure that we address, and I need to circle back with the Policy Team, and it would be helpful if we had a review of that subject in Mid-May if that would work.
- OCL: that depends if we have had the final decisions on At-Large funding by that date.
- XC: Please allow me to determine when we could give you that info. Realistically, what we should do is try to take that subject right after the publication of the draft.
- OCL: I understand that you are quite busy, I fully appreciate that fact and it must be taken into account. However, the decision on these request must be produced otherwise we have wasted out time.
- XC: I understand and I did mention the notion that it make sense to look at it from a multi-year cycle so we do not reinvent the wheel continually.
- XC: We will look at insuring that the results of the evaluation, as on the requests, does not provide erratic results. i.e. there is a method to the decision
- XC: Feedback on the process is important.
- CS: I believe that we should take a wider view of alignment in Section III and there should be an inclusion of the ICANN Mission and Vision, not just based on the priorities of that fiscal year. This is especially important for multi-year projects.
- XC: I think we have tried to address your point in different sections with different titles. Strategic alignment is looked at on a multiyear basis. The multiyear requests are a different animal, we need to take into account the different strategic goals. This will be looked at and incorporated in the future.
- CS: As well, Section IV seems to imply that a report may be due after the project which must be given to Staff. Can you please clarify?
- XC: We need to have a formal follow-up on each of the requests but may not be as formal as a Report.
- CS: One follow up please, in the interim, can there be a check box for Other in Section III? This would allow these activities to be incorporated?
- XC: it is a bit late for us to change the template now as we are almost done with the evaluation. Moreover there is a certain amount of value in the existing priorities.
- AI: FBSC to send Xavier Calvez the notes of this call as well as a list of questions.
- XC Please be sure that whatever you put on paper, I would like to ask At-Large Staff to follow up on any requests that were mentioned during this call so we can ensure that they are not fogotten.
FBSC Questions to CFO
1- Section III: Alignment with FY13 Priorities
Is there a relationship between the number of boxes checked and the likelihood that the project will be funded? If the concerned
project is aligned with one single priority, will it have the same score as the one which is aligned with more than one priority?
2- Section V: Success Metrics
What is the format of the text in the box over the strategic metrics? A quantitative list of the metrics satisfied (picked from the list provided)? Or a qualitative assessment of the success metrics in the list?
3- Section 0
The ALAC proposes to add after “Description”
i. Duration in which we put the project implementation duration (whether it is
for the specified Fiscal Year only or for more than one FY). We can express it by adding 2 choices: “Single action” and“recurring program”.
4 - Also, the ALAC proposes to modify the “Costs” item by splitting into:
i. Total costs where we put the estimated total cost of the project, and
ii. Costs per FY where we detail the cost over the total implementation period
5- Recommendation that Section III Alignment with FY13 Priorities also include Alignment with ICANN's Vision and Mission. Particularly important for multi-year projects which may not be tied to the priorities for a specific year but have overarching benefit.
6- Based on Section IV is a Report due after a granted project is completed?
