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

Thu Oct 6 12:00:44 UTC 2016

To be clear, I was not suggesting that we comment 
on the GNSO statement. I was asking whether we 
should augment our current position to be 
forwarded to the ICANN Board (which is simple 
"support") to incorporate the various issues.

I agree that the jurisdiction group does have 
constraints, but I think the concern was that 
there are those within the group who are pushing 
to widen. This would just act as an additional constraint.

Alan

At 06/10/2016 03:45 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>Good morning Alan,
>
>First of all, I donâ€™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.
>
>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.
>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.
>
>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, Iâ€™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)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tijani BEN JEMAA
>Executive Director
>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>Phone: +216 98 330 114
>           +216 52 385 114
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>Le 5 oct. 2016 Ã  19:45, Vanda Scartezini 
>><<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>vanda at scartezini.org> a Ã©crit :
>>
>>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 belieeve 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: 
>><<mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>>on behalf of Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM
>>To: 'ALAC List' 
>><<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 SÃ©bastien 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 GÃƒÂ©ry <<mailto:Glen at icann.org>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>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-23aug16-en.pdf>https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf 
>>>>, recording at 
>>>><http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 
>>>>and AC recording 
>>>>at<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/>https<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/>://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 ICANNÃ¢€™s organization in 
>>>>that such exploration wo would likely require 
>>>>substantial independent legal advice on 
>>>>alternative jurisdictions and their potential 
>>>>impact on the text and structure of ICANNÃ¢€™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 CCWGÃ¢â‚¬™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
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/f83e62c3/attachment.html>