Re: [bc-gnso] FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget

[Angie Graves <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chris,

I can help with this by taking a first look at the 160 programs.  I would
be glad to share the task if anyone else is interested.

Thank you,

Angie Graves


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Chris Chaplow <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Members ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Here are some notes on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget was
> published a few days early on May 10.****
>
> Comments close 31 May and reply 21 June ahead of special Board meeting to
> approve on 28th June.****
>
> FY14 starts 1 July.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Link to document.****
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> This year has been very different from previous as the new CEO has
> implemented a new project management system called ATASK.****
>
> Finance Staff have been busy setting this up and inputting data. ****
>
> As a result there was no Framework Budget in February so the info in the
> draft Budget is new to the community.****
>
> The format this year is different, instead of 80 pages of document  it is
> more 12 pages of glossy introduction and the rest tables.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Highlights – High level*
>
> ** **
>
> Revenue   ****
>
> FY13 ****
>
> General revenue forecast is *76m$*  slightly down on budget *of 78m$* (71m$ 
> in FY12 Forcast)
> Plus gTLD at  *174*m$  up from  an original *61*m$    (this is loading
> for non batching)****
>
> ** **
>
> FY14****
>
> General revenue budget is 88m$     ( historic transaction vols are -1%
> this is up due to 2.5 million .com contract change, 4 meeting sponships,
>  New gTLD domain sales income in 7m).****
>
> ** **
>
> Plus gTLD at applications  *98 *m$ ****
>
> * *
>
> *Operating Expenses*
>
>   ****
>
> FY13****
>
> Operating Expenses forecast  *68m$ *  against  *74m$* in FY13  Budget
> from  *71m$* in FY12 Budget and *63m$* in FY12 Forcast****
>
> ie FY13 expenses are again significant under budget****
>
> large 30m to reserves****
>
> ** **
>
> FY14****
>
> 84 m$   plus 57$ for new gTLD****
>
> ** **
>
> Staff levels****
>
> Last year I reported Staff levels up from 149 to 189
> FY13 forcast is average 179  and end of year 233****
>
> FY14 Budget is average 259 and end of year 284****
>
> ** **
>
> *Highlights – Low Level *
>
> ** **
>
> Here diving into ATASK ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Take information descriptive from myicann.org  -  ‘projects’ tag  *
>
> ** **
>
> Projects Structure of Objectives – Goals – Portfolios – Programs****
>
> at the lowest level we have 160 ‘programmes’ which replaced the old
>  projects ****
>
> ** **
>
> There is information of expenses in this xls ****
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-spreadsheet-fy14-16may13-en.xlsx
> ****
>
> Where you can see the 160 programmes (same as those in (myicann.org)
> with  all expenses broken down into Personnel, Travel, Prof Services, Admin
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Problem for us now is that programmes are different from projects, so any
> year on year comparison is impossible. ****
>
> I  struggle a bit with the programme titles which read to me more like job
> descriptions than projects.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think the work ahead in the BC comment is to go through the 160
> programmes and ask ourselves what is this?   If we don’t understand  pose
> the question.****
>
> ** **
>
> As an example:****
>
> ** **
>
> FY13 ****
>
> *Compliance*  -   60%  up to 6.1 m$ in FY13  from  4.8 m$ in FY12 Budget
> and 3.8 m$ in FY12 Forecast****
>
> ** **
>
> FY14  - 11 programes****
>
> CC meeting updates  157k$****
>
> CC Monthly updates 0****
>
> CC  Other programmes  571 k$****
>
> CC Complaint Processing and Monitoring Activities  1473 k$****
>
> CC Audit Programme 1115 k$****
>
> CC Contract and policy driven iniciatives   103 k$ ****
>
> CC New gTLD programme readiness    162 k$****
>
> CC Outreach   0$****
>
> Improve CC programme   0$****
>
> CC Annaul report      0$****
>
> *Total  3.5 m$*
>
> ** **
>
> *To answer Ron’s question again*, looking at the historical perspective.
> I looks more like the large increase in compliance  that we celebrated last
> year did not happen. ****
>
> FY12 Budget was    4.8m    ****
>
> FY12 Forecast was  3.8m    (need to research actual) ****
>
> FY13 Budget was    6.9 m    ****
>
> FY13 Forecast was  not reported?****
>
> FY14 Budget  3.5m ****
>
> ** **
>
> *To point Andrew in the right direction for progress on Regional
> initiatives.*
>
> (and as a great example for all to try):****
>
> ** **
>
> In myICANN.org projects****
>
> Select “Internationalization”****
>
> In Fadi’s Goals select “Engage Stakeholders globally”****
>
> In Sally’s Portfolios   select “Engage Stakeholders Globally” and Tarik’s
> program “Implement Regional Strategies”****
>
> In Sally’s Portfolios   select “Regional initiatives, Including centres of
> Excellence”  and Sally’s program “Development and implement standard office
> infrastructure”****
>
> ** **
>
> Turning to the xls  ****
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-spreadsheet-fy14-16may13-en.xlsx
> ****
>
> for each program we can see the expenditure breakdown.****
>
> Using the above example****
>
> program “Implement Regional Strategies”  5.5m$****
>
> program “Development and implement standard office infrastructure”
> 99.340$   (in xls programme  “Other Programs for Regional Initiatives,
> including Centers of Excellence”****
>
> ** **
>
> So it looks loke 5,5m$ which probably was not in last year but who knows?*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> And Andrews second Outreach question.****
>
> One would best go through the xls searching on the word Outreach for all
> the occurrences and investigate them one by one.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hope this is helpful****
>
> Any comment or request  for more elaboration in a particular area most
> welcome.****
>
> ** **
>
> Any volunteers to review the 160 programms and either****
>
> Ask question what  it is?****
>
> Opinion on high or low figure from BC perspective, comparing to previous
> years where possible.****
>
> ** **
>
> There has not been much interest from the CSG work group this time around.
> ****
>
> Angie and Gabi had been interested in this subject  last year so  I am
> hoping that it might continue.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Chris Chaplow*****
>