February 2019 - comments-two-year-planning-21dec18@icann.org

[Comments-two-year-planning-21dec18] Ratified: First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Fir…>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-two-year-planning-21dec18] Pending Ratification: First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Fir…>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-two-year-planning-21dec18] Business Constituency (BC) comment regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Below (and attached) is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process The BC thanks ICANN Org for the proposal on a 2-year process as a mechanism to create more time to plan ICANN activities. Noting that the current time-frame for the planning process is 15 month, the BC believes this is adequate to address ICANN fiscal activities in tandem with the approved strategic plan. However, the BC would like to submit the following questions and responses to questions poised. Question : Is there any precedence for this type of budgeting plan over a 2-year cycle? A budgeting plan for a 5-year Operations/Strategic plan with annual incremental/decremental budget provision do exist but a 2-yearly revolving activities planning may be duplicative and engender an excessive oversight into the staff responsibility domain and may not be the best use of precious community time. Responses to Questions posed to the Community Question 1 - Does the community agree that the yearly planning cycle does not provide sufficient time for community extensive input and interaction on the operating plan and budget? No. The yearly planning cycle provides sufficient time. Question 2 - Does the community believe that more time for planning provides more transparency? Yes but the current time is quite sufficient. For the following questions, the answers are embedded in bold. Question 3 – How and who should set ICANN’s priorities? The current ICANN strategic plan does not prioritize the 5 strategic objectives, they are equally important. • Should parts of the strategic plan be prioritized of the 5 years it applies to? Yes • From the strategic trends exercises conducted with several community organizations during 2018: o “there is no prioritization, everything is #1 and nothing is #1”. There is need for prioritization. o “are the community priorities aligned with ICANN mission/vision?” Yes. o “Focus on technical functions as a priority and avoid allowing budget constraints to negatively affect them” Yes. Question 4 – Should policy development and implementation activities be integral to the planning cycle? For the purpose of better using the limited availability of the community stakeholders, already stretched, and to appropriately allocate ICANN’s support resources, policy development needs and activities could be considered during the planning process: • Should the policy development activities be planned? Yes. • What should be planned collectively by the SO/AC? Based on exploration and need. • What should be planned by the GNSO and ccNSO? Policy Development works, Reviews, Research. Question 5 - What activities, other than policy development, should be planned and by whom? Examples: Reviews - SO/AC with support from ICANN org. Question 6 - Should the planning process include a formalized dedicated phase to plan for SO/AC activities? If so, how many years should be planned for? Yes, 5 years in sync with the 5-year Strategic Plan. Process questions: • Would it be beneficial to insert, in the early part of the planning process, a phase of activity planning resulting in a document submitted for a first public comment period, and follow it by an operating plan and budget development phase which would be the subject of a second public comment period? Yes. • What are the barriers to community engagement in the planning process? Lack of available time? Yes, as most community members are volunteers. Complexity of the information produced? No. Complexity or length of the planning process? No. Lack of relevance or interest? No. -- This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, with input from the BC’s Finance Committee. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-two-year-planning-21dec18] ccNSO-SOPC comments to the ICANN 2-year Planning Process
by Giovanni Seppia Feb. 5, 2019

Feb. 5, 2019

Dear ICANN, Please see attached the ccNSO-SOPC comments on the ICANN 2-year Planning Process. Kind Regards, Giovanni Seppia [cid:image002.jpg@01D4BD96.462D3960]<http://www.eurid.eu/>Giovanni Seppia / External Relations Manager Phone: +32 (0)2 401 27 50 Mobile: +39 335 8141733 Website: www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu> Address: Woluwelaan 150 - 1831 Diegem - Belgium [cid:image007.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30]<https://twitter.com/EUregistry> [cid:image008.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eurid/> [cid:image009.jpg@01D45651.A8F4EB30] <https://www.facebook.com/EUregistry> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer https://eurid.eu/en/other-infomation/privacy-policy

1 0