AFS Network Organization: AFS Programas Interculturales Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Completed by: Andres Quintero Gonzalez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EVALUATION OF 2016NH/2017SH HOSTING FEE NEGOTIATIONS IN 2015

Instructions:
After the close of the 2016NH/2017SH hosting fee negotiations, we are conducting another evaluation
of negotiations. Your feedback will help to inform the deliberation of the Network Financial
Arrangements Review group and will influence potential revisions to policies, calendar, or process.
Therefore, your input in this evaluation is particularly important.
Hosting fee negotiations are governed by Art. 33 of Partnerships, its interpretation in the Board policy on
negotiation, the calendar for negotiations, and the service level agreement (SLA). All of these
documents can be found in the Finance Module of AFS Global under Network Financial Arrangements,
Financial Policies and Financial Arrangements.
Kindly complete this questionnaire by 13 July 2015. Your input is much appreciated and will provide
the basis for how we proceed in the next round.

1.

Participation in Negotiations

1.1

Did you participate in hosting fee negotiations

for the 2016NH/2017SH program years?

yes

If yes, how many partner organizations did you

negotiate with for sending and hosting?

no
Less than 5 x
5 to 10
11 to 15
16 20

More than 20 partners

1.2

Did you participate in hosting fee negotiations

for the 2015 and/or 2014 program years?

yes

no

If your answer is no to both questions 1.1 and 1.2, i.e. if your hosting fees have remained the same for
three years, you do not need to answer the remaining questions, unless you participated in negotiations
about other Partners hosting fees. In that case, and if your answer is yes to either 1.1 or 1.2, please
continue.

Negotiation questionnaire 2015

2.

Goals for and Outcomes of the Negotiations

2.1

On your Hosting:

2.1.1What were your top negotiation targets as a HOSTING for your most
important (highest volume) sending partners - please rank your top 5 targets
from 1 to 5:
Not overcommit on my own hosting capacity _____
Raise hosting fees _3__
Maintain hosting fee level constant compared to last year _1__
Reduce hosting fees _____
Safeguard or build a negotiating position for the reciprocal discussion
on my organizations fees to be paid to partners _4__
Minimize the effort and energy spent in hosting fee negotiations _____
Avoid needing to use reserves to fund potential financial gaps,
if hosting fees received fall below expectations __2__
Avoid discussion about my organizations financial situation
and being challenged on hosting cost _____
Secure best possible deal for my organization - not getting worse terms than other partners __5__
Other target _____
If you chose other target as one of your 5 top targets, please describe what it was:
We are not hosting but these would be our top negotiation targets

2.1.2How well did you achieve your goals (List goals from question above and rate
accordingly)
Fully achieved as expected

Substantially better than expected

Somewhat better than expected

Somewhat worse than expected

Substantially worse than expected

2.1.3Please list your most important sending partners these responses refer to:
We did not have hosting fee negotiations as Hosting Partners.

Negotiation questionnaire 2015

2.2 On your Sending:

2.2.1What were your top negotiation targets as a SENDER for your most
important (highest volume) hosting partners overall -please rank your top 5
targets from 1 to 5:
Get firm commitment on available hosting slots __4__
Maintain hosting fee constant compared to last year _____
Reduce hosting fees __3__
Safeguard or build-up a negotiation position for the reciprocal discussion
on my organizations hosting fees and places _____
Minimize the effort and energy spent in hosting fee negotiations _____
Avoid needing to raise participant fees for my sending program __1__
Avoid needing to use reserves to fund potential financial gaps,
if hosting fees to be paid rise above expectations __2__
Get transparency on the appropriateness of hosting fees
in light of my partners actual financial situation _____
Secure best possible deal for my organization - not getting worse terms than other partners __5__
Other target _____
If you chose other target as one of your 5 top targets, please describe what it was:

2.2.2How well did you achieve your goals (List goals from question above and rate
accordingly)
Fully achieved as expected

Substantially better than expected

Somewhat better than expected

Somewhat worse than expected

Substantially worse than expected

2.2.3Please list your most important hosting partners these responses refer to:
GER (10 to 8) & BFL (4 to 2) reduced our spots and increased their fees.

Negotiation questionnaire 2015

2.3

For your most important (highest volume) partners, did the agreed final fees
Stay the same as your initial proposal

Increased a bit (<5 %)

Increased substantially (> 10%)

Were reduced a bit (< 5%)

Were reduced substantially (> 10%)

---

Please comment:

3.

Negotiation Calendar for 2016NH/2017SH (looking back)

Point 5 of the Policy on Negotiations between Network Organizations requires that a calendar for
negotiations be established. Based on experience and feedback in earlier years, the calendar was
changed for the 2015 and 2016 negotiation rounds (please review it in the Finance Module of AFS
Global under Network Financial Arrangements, Financial Arrangements). The timing of negotiations
(March-May) was set as a compromise between the needs of hosting and sending partners. The idea is
to make it possible to combine negotiations for hosting fees and number of hosting spots in the same
time frame. A number of Partners, USA and GER in particular, have let it be known that they are not able
to agree on hosting spots more than a year in advance, and USA in particular has asked Partners to
agree on both spots and hosting fees later in the year.

3.1

Was the calendar appropriate from your perspective?

Please comment:

yes

no

Negotiation questionnaire 2015

3.2

On advice of the Network Development Committee (NDC),

no allowance was made for in-person negotiations
as had been the practice in prior years.
After the 2016 round, do you agree that in-person meetings
are generally not necessary for these negotiations?

yes

x no

Please comment:
I have never participated in a in-person negotiation.

4.

Negotiation Calendar Looking Forward

Going forward, we see 4 different options and would like to understand your preference:

4.1

We would like to stick with similar timing as in the negotiation round just finished (even though it
means that hosting fees are not yet finalized at the time we have to calculate and publish our sending
fees).

4.2

We would like to negotiate for both hosting fees and hosting slots at the same time but half a year later
(i.e. so that in-person negotiations for the 2017NH/2018SH programs can be held in connection with
the World Congress in October 2016, acknowledging that sending fees will have to be set and published
based on assumptions and experience rather than finalized negotiations.

4.3

We would like to negotiate for both hosting fees and hosting slots at the same time but one full year
earlier (i.e. so that in-person negotiations for the 2017NH/2018SH programs can be held in connection
with the Network Meeting in October 2015, even though it may mean that some Partners may not be
able to finalize hosting spots or fees at that time and will ask for exceptions from the rules.

4.4

We have negotiated with our Partners according independent of the calendar and dont feel that a
calendar set by AFS International is necessary at all.

For the future, we prefer:

4.1
4.2
x 4.3
4.4

We dont like any of the 4 options and propose the following concrete alternative:

Negotiation questionnaire 2015

5.

Service Level Agreement (SLA and Gross Margin Appendix)

To provide a framework for agreements and to ascertain that all necessary points are covered, a
Hosting Service Level Agreement (SLA) has been provided for your use in the negotiations.

5.1

Did the SLA and GM Appendix prove useful

in your negotiations?

yes

no

Improvements in the SLA you suggest:

I have not use it.

6.

Any other issues not covered in this questionnaire you wish to comment on: