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

Fri Oct 7 05:44:16 UTC 2016

Thanks Leon, your explanation makes sense and I fully agree.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Oct 2016 3:38 a.m., "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Thanks Seun,
>
> While I agree with the principles of your thoughts, I would tend to
> disagree on mixing pears and apples. Let me explain.
>
> If we draft a comment on the budget, which is what we were asked to do,
> but include a whole position on where we think the jurisdiction group
> should stand, then I believe we would be mixing subjects and risking to
> have our comment on the budget be distorted by the issue on jurisdiction.
>
> On the other hand, if we draft a comment and, as the GNSO did, express our
> advice on keeping a close eye on legal fees related to all issues but
> specially those on jurisdiction, I think we would accomplish the task of
> commenting on the budget and also stating our point.
>
> If in anyway we want to dedicate a statement to the implications on having
> the jurisdiction discussion deviate from the scope clearly stated in our
> WS1 recommendations, then I would support it as well but as a separate
> document.
>
> That’s only my opinion, of course.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 06/10/2016, a las 21:22, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Hello Leon,
>
> Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will
> be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should
> also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction.
>
> Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute
> significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only
> increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we
> need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong
> time to do such and could send very wrong signals.
>
> Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is
> that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> 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 <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 <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/
> 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 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>*
> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> *
> *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-accoun
> tability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf , recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso
> /gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 and AC recording at
> https://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/di
> splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.or
> g/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di
> splay/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/di
> splay/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/di
> splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161007/93f0f8a3/attachment.html>