<<<
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:
OPERATING PLAN AND BUDGET FRAMEWORK - FY2010
Comment period ended: 30 April 2009...kept open for more comments
Summary published: 14 May 2009
Prepared by: Kevin Wilson, CFO
I. BACKGROUND
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
contains:
* 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
process.
* 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.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS and CONTRIBUTORS
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)
III. SUMMARY & ANALYSIS
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
FY09.
*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
manager.
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
CFO
ICANN
kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kevin.wilson@xxxxxxxxx>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|