Page History
- Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
Made By: James Bladel
Seconded by: Keith Drazek & Julf Helsingius
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-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 likely support revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of
...
| 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. |
|---|
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.
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 request 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. .
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.
...
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. |
|---|
The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN CFO.
2. Motion on the interim appointment of the GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration
...
Made by: James Bladel
Seconded by: Amr Elsadr
WHEREAS
As stated in Section 1.1(a) of Article 6 of the new ICANN Bylaws, concerning the composition and organization of the Empowered Community (EC), “The Empowered Community (“EC”) shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC (each a “Decisional Participant” or “associate,” and collectively, the “Decisional Participants”).”
...
The GNSO created a Drafting Team (DT) on 30 June 2016 to identify the GNSO’s new rights and obligations, and work with ICANN staff to prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 201606).
RESOLVED
1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis.
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. Following Within three months after the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council, the GNSO is expected to finalize its decision on the appointment of appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration and will communicate this accordingly to the ICANN Secretary.
4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.
3. Rejection of the modification to procedure that implements the WHOIS conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation, because it is not consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation.
MOTION WITHDRAWN
Made by: Stephanie Perrin
...
