ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Summary / Analysis of FY10 Operating Plan and Budget Framework

  • To: "op-budget-fy2010@xxxxxxxxx" <op-budget-fy2010@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Summary / Analysis of FY10 Operating Plan and Budget Framework
  • From: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:12:59 -0700

Summary and analysis of public comments for:
Comment period ended: 30 April 2009...kept open for more comments
Summary published:  14 May 2009
Prepared by:  Kevin Wilson, CFO


Participation The proposed Framework for the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget 
covers the operating activities and budgets for revenues and expenses for the 
fiscal year beginning 1 July 2009 and ending on 30 June 2010. This document 

*                    a description of the operations planning and budgeting 
process followed for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN) including the critical requirement for community involvement in that 

*                    the highlights of the annual operating plan, describing 
the key outcomes that ICANN has set out to achieve

*                    the annual proposed budget including explanations of the 
revenue expectations and general spending plans for the fiscal year ending 30 
June 2010.

This comment period was intended to encourage community members to provide 
feedback on how well this plan addresses priorities identified in the Strategic 
Plan and those plan elements that might be streamlined in light of the current 
world economic climate. The comments and feedback obtained was intended to 
provide input to the more detailed draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget which 
will be posted by 17 May 2009 and discussed and adopted by the ICANN Board at 
its Sydney meeting in June 2009.


As of the 7 May 2009 informally extended deadline, a total of 18 community 
submissions have been made by groups and individuals to this comment forum.  
The comments were submitted by four separate groups and 14 individuals 
(including one advertisement and three individuals who submitted more than one 
comment). The contributors are listed below in alphabetical order (with 
relevant initials noted in parentheses):

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (submitted by email on 5 May 2009 after the 
close date)
European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO)
GoDaddy.com, Inc, (GD)
Sam Goundar (SG)
Naveed ul Haq (NH) (submitted two comments)
Intellectual Property Constituency of the GNSO (IPC)
Kerel Kerel (KK)
George Kirikos (GK) submitted two comments)
Gao Moseu (GM) (submitted by email on 1 May 2009 after the close date; 
submitted by Janice Douma Lange)
Stanley Osao (SO)
Andreas Piazza (AP)
George Sadowsky (GS)
Ram Anuj Singh (RS)
Cherie Stubbs (CS)
Jeffrey Williams (LW) submitted two comments)


Comments submitted to this public forum tended to address or be directed toward 
four main thematic areas
(1) areas where costs can be reduced or help lower to FY09 levels;
(2) the need for enhanced transparency and providing of additional information 
regarding projected expenditures by functional area or key objective;
(3) the need for additional focus on cyber threats, internet security, and the 
monitoring of contract compliance with Registrars and accredited Registries; and
(4) the increase in participation of the public and the At-Large constituency.

Most of the comments were focused on the needs of individual or group writing 
the comment.

The comments made on the first theme indicating areas where costs can be 
reduced or help lower to FY09 levels included:
*GK stated that spending should be reduced by at least 50%, with savings passed 
on to domain registrants. GK also suggested reducing the number of ICANN 
meetings to no more than 2 per year, eliminating the new gTLD programs as well 
as the fellowship program, and tendering telephone providers to ensure that the 
lowest cost suppliers are used.
*GD stated that in the current world economic climate we believe any spending 
growth by a non-profit public benefit corporation that relies on revenue 
collected from those affected by the economic downturn is difficult to justify. 
GD suggested the Staff should re-examine all operational activities with the 
charge to identify where costs can be cut and, at the least, be held flat with 
*IPC stated that the area of Organizational Reviews, within the Administrative 
Improvement budget would be an excellent place for streamlining, reducing, or 
deferring budgeted expenditures.
*A comment submitted by SO suggested that the community can respond positively 
to the economic downturn by exploring additional revenue options for ICANN as 
opposed to considering reduction in expenses.

The comments made on the second theme stating the need for enhanced 
transparency and providing of additional information regarding projected 
expenditures by functional area or key objective included:
*CS says There is still no breakdown of  costs by functional area: SO's, AC's,  
other.  Without such a breakdown it is highly likely that SO's and AC's have no 
reasonable idea regarding the  amount of ICANN funds spent in supporting their 
organizations and hence no  concept of how much their organizations are 
subsidized by other ICANN  entities, in particular gTLD registrants via 
registries and  registrars. CS added that it would be very helpful to be able 
to compare the costs associated with various ICANN entities with the projected 
revenue from them.
*GD commented that for the 15 broad operational activities summarized in the 
Plan, ICANN should show the projected costs of each of these activities broken 
down by deliverable or key objective as listed in the Appendix. GD added that 
it would also be helpful to understand how these objectives from the Operating 
Plan and Budget tie back to the nine priorities of the Strategic plan.
*ALAC stated that tying activities and their results to the costs associated 
with them is important

The comments made on the third theme related to the need for additional focus 
on cyber threats, internet security, and the monitoring of contract compliance 
with Registrars and accredited Registries include:
*NH commented that in view of cyber threats and Internet stability, an increase 
in the SSR budget would be helpful to address security concerns which may 
continue to appear.
*GS stated that he believes ICANN is neglecting, on a relative basis, security 
and stability issues. ICANN operates to serve the users of the Internet in the 
pubic interest and the public interest is best served if ICANN provides as many 
resources to their security and stability activity as are claimed to be needed.
*IPC commented that they appreciate ICANN's decision three years ago to 
establish a contract compliance department, although and much more remains to 
be done. A credible, comprehensive program to monitor compliance with, and to 
enforce, its contracts with gTLD registries and with accredited registrars is 
required. IPC added that they also welcome the plan to hire a Whois compliance 

The comments made on the fourth theme related the need for increased 
participation of the public and the At-Large constituency includes:
*EURALO stated that neither the At-Large constituency nor the ALAC is ever 
mentioned once in the entire body of the document; even in the nine pages of 
Appendix A, which lists ICANN's operating plan items up to the details of 
"Coordinate and manage Board website hosting" and "Facilitate payment of 
Director expenses", the ALAC and the At-Large appear only four times, of which 
three are actions aimed at "improving their performance".
*EURALO also stated that they urge the ICANN Board to check out the 
corporation's priorities and ensure appropriate attention, means and budget are 
allocated to promoting and supporting participation by the global public.

IV. Next Steps

Staff will synthesize these comments and include in the draft FY10 Operating 
Plan and Budget which is to be posted for public comment, per the ICANN bylaws 
by 17 May 2009.  In particular, more detail and details broken down in 
categories similar to what has been requested are included in the draft FY10 
Operating Plan and Budget.  These comments on the FY10 Operating Plan and 
Framework along with subsequent comments on the Draft Plan will be used by the 
Board Finance Committee and Board as part of their considerations in approving 
the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget at the Sydney ICANN meeting.

Thank you
Kevin Wilson

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy