Date : 6/13/2021 6:17:59 AM
From : "IMMR"
To : "michalko@justice.gov.il"
Subject : EG IT Review | engagement with the Regional Groups
Attachment : 2021 July – HoFIU-17 – IT Review and the Future IT Landscape of the Egmont Group – Next Steps - FIU Use Only.pdf;Annex A - EY's report - Egmont IT Solution Market Research Report.pdf;Annex D - Results of the consultation process with the EG WGs RGs.pdf;Annex E - Glossary.pdf;Annexes B and C - budgetary prognosis.pdf;





-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: EG IT Review | engagement with the Regional Groups
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:40:27 -0400
From: Nedko Krumov <Nedko.Krumov@egmont.org>
To: dblkpp@egmont.org, upb@egmont.org, fdk@egmont.org, azefms-icd@egmont.org, azefms-requests@egmont.org, fid@egmont.org, fms@egmont.org, fms2@egmont.org, edgar.lopez@egmont.org, gcid-fiu@egmont.org, fis-guernsey@egmont.org, fiu.iom@egmont.org, philip.hunkin@egmont.org, sue.anderson@egmont.org, elisabeth.rattigan@egmont.org, impa@egmont.org, maya.lederman@egmont.org, elad.wieder@egmont.org, mira.atias@egmont.org, karen.bar-shalom@egmont.org, Lynn.Lerer@egmont.org, jfcu@egmont.org, behar.xhema@egmont.org, arsim.fejzullahu@egmont.org, effi@egmont.org, michael.schoeb@egmont.org, spcsb@egmont.org, oxana.gisca@egmont.org, siccfin@egmont.org, dspp@egmont.org, fiu-sm@egmont.org, giancarlo.montico@egmont.org, apml@egmont.org, mros@egmont.org, masak@egmont.org, masak1@egmont.org, sdfm@egmont.org, sdfm-international@egmont.org, vitalii.beregivskyi@egmont.org, ukfiu.birmingham@egmont.org, UKFIU@egmont.org, ukfiu-admin@egmont.org, aif@egmont.org, sorin.gabor@egmont.org, jerome.beaumont@egmont.org, nedko.krumov@egmont.org, asta.piesinaitezangla@egmont.org, gonzalo.alvarado@egmont.org, Secretariat@egmont.org, andrey.frolov@egmont.org, maeghan.mcgaraughty@egmont.org, michelle.ouyang@egmont.org


**Letter on behalf of the EUROPE II Regional Representatives**

 

Dear Members of EUROPE II Regional Group,

 

We trust you are well!

 

As you know, earlier in May 2021, the EC asked us to distribute EY’s report to the EUROPE II and conduct high-level coordination about issues raised in that paper. The substantial and important feedback received facilitated the discussion during the EC meeting on May 31st. Moreover, it proved the value of such preliminary consultation for a successful discussion of complex matters in a virtual environment.

 

We presented your views during the EC meeting on May 31st, which was explicitly dedicated to the topic of the EG IT review.

During that meeting, the EC agreed on the following:

  • EY’s report delivers the necessary quality and covers the expectations identified at the beginning of the process.
  • The technical and other information (about the potential IT infrastructure and software solutions) included in EY’s report is sufficient to facilitate the intermediate HoFIU decision-making process.
  • The main findings and recommendations of the report are in line with our previous discussions and decisions on the IT review. This includes the need to use a commercially available IT solution and the unsuitability of an on-premise approach for hosting.
  • Acknowledging that building the specific IT security, IT infrastructure, governance, and financial models of the new EG IT system would require an additional in-depth research and development phase (which cannot be done within the current review process), the discussions of the HoFIU on the IT Review should remain on a strategic level.
  • Due to all findings of the EG IT review process and the established need to further improve the IT technology of the organization to answer the FIU business requirements for modern, timely, and effective international information exchange, it will recommend to the HoFIU to approve the “Go Option.” The Go Option would enable the further exploration of the details on IT security, IT infrastructure, governance and financial models of a new EG IT system to enable the final decision-making process by the HoFIU.
  • The HoFIU discussion should focus on whether the determined general framework of the “Go Option” is acceptable or the “No Go Option” reflects the organization's requirements better.

 

Building on that, we would like to ask the following additional questions, this time specifically focusing on the proposals included in the MEMO presented to the HoFIU on June 4th (please see the MEMO and the supporting documents attached for your reference), namely:

  1. Are there any core technical aspects that need further clarification and are needed to allow you to take the high-level decision for the “Go Option” vs. “No Go Option” (bearing in mind that the exact technical and operational specifications of the new system shall be designed in the next phase)?
  2. Does the budgetary prognosis (for the “Go Option” with public cloud scenario) included in Annex C provide sufficient information to make a decision?  Are the members of your region comfortable with supporting a go-option if the final cost estimates for implementation will result in a contribution matrix not higher than 2.1 M USD (bearing in mind that the exact numbers of the increasing need to be specified in the next phase, but this financial framework would serve as a maximum commitment)?
  3. Are there other elements in the MEMO that are unclear?

 

You are kindly asked to provide the requested feedback to nedko.krumov@egmontsecretariat.org or nedko.krumov@egmont.org no later than Wednesday, June 23rd 2021.

 

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

 

Kind regards,

Astghik and Oxana