[ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion

Thu Oct 6 08:45:32 UTC 2016

Hello,
See in Tijani mail.
Thanks
SeB

Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

De :  <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
Date :  jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45
À :  Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
Cc :  ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Objet :  Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion

> Good morning Alan,
> 
> First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another
> chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the
> CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also
> a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO.
Let’s do it.
> 
> That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable.
> It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome.
No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if
needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this
issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an
ALAC/At-Large decision.
If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like
jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be
useful.
> Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and
> binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that
> has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting
> organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of
> the table one of those tasks.
Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not?
> 
> I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from
> inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the
> subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction
> concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN.
> 
> Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and
> drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was
> debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all
> included so no need to repeat them)
Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed
something.
Thanks for consideration.
SeB
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>             +216 52 385 114
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>> Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org> a écrit :
>> 
>> I agree that 1-4 is to just support.
>>  We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which
>> I believe there is no hurry for this.
>> Vanda Scartezini
>> Polo Consultores Associados
>> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>> Sorry for any typos.
>>  
>>  
>> From: <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg
>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM
>> To: 'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
>>  
>>> There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG
>>> Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the
>>> comments received to date, it will be approved.
>>> 
>>> Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien
>>> for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that:
>>> 
>>> - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in
>>> reiterating them;
>>> 
>>> - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization
>>> (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit
>>> funding (as in legal costs) going into this.
>>> 
>>> Should we take any action? For example:
>>> 
>>> a) Support 1-5 as noted above;
>>> 
>>> b) explicitly not support one or more of the points;
>>> 
>>> c) be silent;
>>> 
>>> d) some other variant?
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Marika Konings
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM
>>>> To: Glen de Saint GÃ©ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Adopted motion
>>>> 
>>>> Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
>>>> 
>>>> Made By: James Bladel
>>>> Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek
>>>> 
>>>> WHEREAS,
>>>> 
>>>> 1.      Per its Charter, the Project Cost Support Team (PCST) has supported
>>>> the CCWG-Accountability in developing a draft budget and cost-control
>>>> processes for the CCWG-Accountability activities for FY17, and has also
>>>> developed a historical analysis of all the transition costs to date (see
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf ).
>>>> 
>>>> 2.      The CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget was presented at its plenary
>>>> meeting of June 21st and approved for transmission to the Chartering
>>>> Organizations for validation as per the process agreed with the PCST. This
>>>> request for validation was received on 23 June.
>>>> 
>>>> 3.      Following review and discussion during ICANN56, the GNSO Council
>>>> requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see
>>>> transcript at 
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-2
>>>> 3aug16-en.pdf , recording at
>>>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3
>>>> and AC recording athttps://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/).
>>>> 
>>>> 4.     The GNSO Council notes that many members of the GNSO community have
>>>> expressed the view that the projected budget does not likely support
>>>> revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of ICANNâ€™s organization in that
>>>> such exploration would likely require substantial independent legal advice
>>>> on alternative jurisdictions and their potential impact on the text and
>>>> structure of ICANNâ€™s Bylaws.
>>>> 
>>>> 5.      The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant
>>>> materials.
>>>> 
>>>> RESOLVED,
>>>> 
>>>> 1.      The GNSO Council hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability
>>>> FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction
>>>> with the CCWG budget, expects the working groups to be restrained and
>>>> judicious in their use of outside legal assistance, and believes that the
>>>> Legal Committee should exercise reasonable and effective controls in
>>>> evaluating requests for outside legal assistance and should approve them
>>>> only when deemed essential to assist a working group to fully and
>>>> objectively understand and develop a particular course of action for which
>>>> the group has reached a substantial degree of consensus and requires legal
>>>> advice on its risks and feasibility.
>>>> 
>>>> 2.      The GNSO Council expects to receive regular updates on actual
>>>> expenditures as tracked against this adopted budget, and reserves the right
>>>> to provide further input on the budget allocation in relation to the
>>>> CCWG-Accountability related activities.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. The GNSO Council expects ICANN staff, including its office of General
>>>> Counsel, to provide the assistance requested by the CCWG and its working
>>>> groups in an expeditious, comprehensive, and unbiased manner.
>>>> 
>>>> 4.      The GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability and staff to work
>>>> within the constraints of this approved budget, and that excess costs or
>>>> requests for additional funding beyond said budget should be recommended by
>>>> the Legal Committee only when deemed essential to completion of the
>>>> CCWGâ€™s work and objectives. .
>>>> 
>>>> 5.      It is the position of the GNSO Council that revisiting the
>>>> jurisdiction or organization of the ICANN legal entity, as established by
>>>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1,  would not likely be supported by this
>>>> projected budget and, further, that such inquiry should not be undertaken
>>>> at this time because the new accountability measures are all premised and
>>>> dependent on California jurisdiction for their effective operation, and any
>>>> near-term changes in organizational jurisdiction could be extremely
>>>> destabilizing for ICANN and its community.
>>>> 
>>>> 6.      The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this
>>>> resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the
>>>> ICANN CFO.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> 
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>> 
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC>>
)
> 
> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online:
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161006/2ef72d3a/attachment.html>