<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Replies interspersed<div><br></div><div>Holly<br><div><div>On 6 Oct 2016, at 4:42 am, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
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.<br><br>
Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank
Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that:<br><br>
- Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in
reiterating them;<br></div></blockquote>Agreed<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
- 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.<br></div></blockquote>Agreed<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
Should we take any action? For example:<br><br>
a) Support 1-5 as noted above;<br></div></blockquote>I think we do already, but no harm in saying so<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
b) explicitly not support one or more of the points;<br><br>
c) be silent;<br></div></blockquote>The danger in saying nothing is that we look as if we are in some way backing out of the process - we aren’t but saying nothing could look that way<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
d) some other variant?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><b>From:</b> Marika Konings
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Glen de Saint GĂ©ry
<<a href="mailto:Glen@icann.org">Glen@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Adopted motion<br><br>
<b>Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request<br>
</b><br>
Made By: James Bladel<br>
Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek<br><br>
WHEREAS,<br><br>
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
<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf">
https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf</a>
).<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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
<a href="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</a>
, recording at
<a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3">
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3</a>
and AC recording at
<a href="https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/">
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/</a>). <br><br>
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 ICANN’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 ICANN’s Bylaws.<br>
<br>
5. The GNSO Council has discussed and
reviewed all the relevant materials.<br><br>
RESOLVED,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 CCWG’s work and objectives.
.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.</blockquote></div>
<span><smime257.p7s></span>_______________________________________________<br>ALAC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac<br><br>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<br>ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>