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.

...