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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Oct 7 03:04:00 UTC 2016


Tijani believes that if we are going to support 
any part of the GNSO resolution, we should not 
just say we support their motion but craft our 
own words. Since I need to reply quickly, we do 
not have time to craft words and get agreement 
from the ALAC (in my mind, it is not of 
sufficient urgency for the ALT or the Chair to take unilateral action).

We seem to have support for parts 1-4 of the GNSO 
motion and I will say that. We seem to be divided 
on whether we should intercede on exactl how the 
WS2 work is discussed or even if we should 
attempt to override the budget decision process 
laid out in the document, so I will be silent on that.

We can follow all of this up with a formal 
statement if we can come to closure on it 
quickly. I welcome anyone volunteering to draft such a statement.

Alan

At 06/10/2016 09:45 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, 
>Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. 
>The only thing to do is to draft a position that 
>reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by 
>the way, and have it vote by the ALAC.
>
>I cannot offer to draft the position but I will 
>be glad to contribute. I also think it is 
>important that we signal towards not widening 
>the scope of the jurisdiction group and if 
>establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>León
>
>>El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA 
>><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> escribió:
>>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget:
>>
>>The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts 
>>the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, 
>>as well as the cost-control processes presented 
>>in conjunction with the CCWG budget,
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>Executive Director
>>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>>Phone: +216 98 330 114
>>           +216 52 385 114
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>>Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet 
>>><<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>sebastien at bachollet.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>See in Tijani mail.
>>>Thanks
>>>SeB
>>>
>>>Sébastien Bachollet
>>>+33 6 07 66 89 33
>>>Blog: <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>>>Mail: Sébastien Bachollet 
>>><<mailto:sebastien at bachollet.com>sebastien at bachollet.com>
>>>
>>>De : 
>>><<mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>>>on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA 
>>><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>>>Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45
>>>À : Vanda Scartezini <<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>vanda at scartezini.org>
>>>Cc : ALAC 
>>><<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 
>>>Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 Ã  19:45, Vanda Scartezini 
>>>>><<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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)
>>
>>_______________________________________________ 
>>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)

_______________________________________________
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
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/fbf543bd/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list