Page History

...

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-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 support revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of ICANN”s organization.

   From Ed: I would delete or otherwise modify Whereas clause 4 to temper the suggestion that exploration of jurisdiction or any other subtopic should be restricted by budgetary concerns. I should note we have a WS2 subgroup entitled "jurisdiction" for a reason: the community in WS1 did feel an examination of jurisdiction was an essential part of our accountability discussions. Jurisdiction has many aspects. Whether the location of ICANN headquarters is an appropriate topic of consideration, something that would cause a number of difficulties budgetary and otherwise, is something the subgroup is currently discussing. Other aspects of jurisdiction, for example the site of arbitration of contractual disputes, are also matters being looked at by this subgroup and would not raise many of the same budgetary concerns. A blanket statement concerning the budgetary aspect of "revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of ICANN's organisation" would not be appropriate.  From Phil: Eliminate any suggestion that discussion of ICANN’s organizational locus of incorporation is off-limits for the Jurisdiction subgroup based upon budget considerations From Keith: The RySG has significant concerns about any increase/expansion of the proposed WS2 budget and would likely oppose language suggesting (a) reopening discussions on ICANN's  incorporation and/or physical headquarters, and (b) the need for additional funds to support that effort. All the reforms we developed in WS1 assume California not-for-profit law and that simply isn't going to change in WS2. I also do not believe the RySG would agree to lowering the threshold for additional funds to be solely a determination of the Legal Committee.

5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials.

...

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 (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf).
   
   
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 the CCWG-Accountability and staff to work within the constraints of this approved budget, and that excess costs or request for additional funding will be considered only in extraordinary circumstances.

   From Ed: I would delete or change Resolved clause three to recognise that additional funding may be needed due to : 1. inadequate preliminary budgeting or 2. unforeseen circumstances that are less than extraordinary (i.e. seepage of WS2 into FY 18). I share Phil's concerns regarding the amount budgeted for independent legal counsel. As a member of the legal committee I'll do my best to constrain costs but certainly if additional funds are needed I would like to feel requests for additional funding would be considered short of "extraordinary circumstances" (again, another reason to modify or eliminate Resolved clause 3).  From Paul: Proposed modification: “It is the position of the GNSO Council that any choice by WS2 participants to revisit the formation jurisdiction or nature of organization of the ICANN legal entity, as established by CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, namely California, would not be adequately supported by this projected budget as any change in formation jurisdiction or nature of organization of the ICANN legal entity would necessarily lead to undoing much of the work of Workstream 1.  In the event that WS@ participants open up this topic, additional funding for legal advice will become necessary.” From Phil: Express general concern about the adequacy of the funds budgeted for outside legal assistance, as well as the proposed process for deciding whether additional funds should be allocated at a future point of time. Whether the “extraordinary circumstances” standard proposed in Resolved clause 3 does not set too high a bar, given the tough cost control measures already established for WS2 and the inability to foresee where all of the multiple subgroups may require independent legal advice.

4. 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, is not supported by this projected budget.
   
   

   From Phil: Changing the language of Resolved clause 4 to express the consensus view of Council that ICANN should remain incorporated within the U.S. (because it’s a stable and predictable legal environment; has been ICANN’s jurisdictional locus for two decades; all the accountability measures have been designed to work within the context of CA law; is consistent with the incorporation of the EC and PTI; etc.) – rather than implying that it should not be discussed at all for budgetary reasons -- which seems similar to the “out of scope” position that did not have significant backing with the subgroup, even though the consensus within the subgroup seems to be to leave U.S. incorporation in place and move on to secondary jurisdiction matters once we have had some discussion.  If changes are made to resolved Clause 4 then there should probably be some corresponding changes to Whereas clause 4 as well.

5. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN CFO.    

...