Re: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Ed.  Thoughtful contribution to the discussion, as always.

And like you (& many others), I’m not keen on flushing the past 2 years of work 
by undertaking a redo of WS1.  But I think the point stands that, even as a 
peripheral discussion, indulging a lengthy examination of ICANN’s jurisdiction 
has the potential to create significant cost overruns.

Perhaps I could walk back the additional language to remove the last bit 
(threatening to withhold approval).  Something like:
“Of particular interest to many in the GNSO Community is the unresolved 
question of the scope of Work Stream 2, as it applies to the governing 
jurisdiction of ICANN.  Please come prepared to this issue at the webinar.”

If something like this is acceptable to you (and still satisfactory to Paul & 
Phil) we can take this approach.  And I’d welcome thoughts from other 
Councilors on this as well.

Thanks—

J.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 at 3:39
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Bruce Tonkin 
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, 
requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Hi everyone,

Bruce is correct and, frankly, I'm not as concerned with the impact of the 
scope of WS2 jurisdiction on the budget and cost containment proposals for WS2 
as are Paul and Phil..

If the nightmare scenario occurs and the CCWG has a collective change of heart 
and decides to move all ICANN jurisdiction to Tomorrowland (just down the 
street from Marina Del Ray, inside Disneyland), for example, the problems 
created will be far more than the impact on the budget. Our WS1 work product is 
based upon California jurisdiction. A change of jurisdiction at this point will 
require a complete redo, hiring of one or two different law firms with 
expertise in the new jurisdiction etc. IMHO it's an implausible scenario and 
not where our focus should be. It would be simple to create similar budget 
busting scenerios  for other WS2 subgroups but they would be equally 
implausible. Happy to do so if you like but none of them are likely to happen.

Don't forget: for any subgroup proposal to gain traction it would need to be 
approved by the entire CCWG. In March 2015 I proposed changing the requirement 
that ICANN be based in Los Angeles County to one where it could be based 
anywhere in California. That idea was shot down by the entire CCWG. I just 
don't see where a group which wouldn't consider the possibility of someday 
basing ICANN in San Diego would now seriously entertain the thought of moving 
it to Nevada, Newfoundland or Namibia. It's just not going to happen.

I should also note that prioritising and giving legitimacy to the idea that 
changing jurisdiction is something under serious consideration empowers those 
in Washington who are desperately trying to kill the transition.

I think the Webinar could be quite valuable. The legal costs are of particular 
concern to me. I'd like to get a bit more information as to the basis legal 
costs have / will be determined/approved, the expected breakdown of costs 
between Jones Day, Adler and Sidley, any retainer  or agreement ICANN has with 
Jones Day that would prevent ICANN corporate from obtaining advice elsewhere on 
a more economical basis and whether we in the GNSO could direct the CCWG to 
utilise the less expensive of the two independent law firms when possible. As a 
member of the small CCWG  legal sub team that hired both Sidley and Adler and 
privy to certain contractual information,  I can state that there is a 
substantial cost difference between what ICANN is paying each of the firms. The 
cheaper firm should be used where possible to get the greatest value for the 
corporation.

I'd prefer we don't include special language in the letter prioritising the 
question of jurisdiction (particularly since, as Bruce pointed out, that's not 
something the BFC or even the CCWG chairs can tell us: don't forget we are 
bottom up and the bottom has not yet definitively spoken) but I won't object to 
it's inclusion out of respect for my colleagues Paul and Phil. I would hope, 
however, that the webinar itself will not devolve into one focused on such an 
implausible scenario when more pressing and likely issues and outcomes  could  
be discussed and deliberated.

Thanks for considering,

Ed Morris




________________________________
From: "Bruce Tonkin" 
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 8:18 AM
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, 
requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Hello James,

Note that the Board doesn’t set the scope of Work stream 2 – that is the role 
of the chartering organizations.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:27 AM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, 
requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Hi Phil and Paul. Thanks for these thoughts, and to Paul for catching the 
omission of this topic.

I agree that we should raise this, but the goal of this letter is to secure the 
webinar. We should, however, flag the subject as an X factor that we will be 
watching for in the webinar, and the work of WS2.

How about we split the baby, by adding something along the lines of:

"Of particular interest to many in the GNSO community is the unresolved 
question of the scope of Work Stream 2, as it applies to the governing 
jurisdiction of I can. Please come prepared to discuss this issue at the 
webinar, as our ultimate approval of this proposal and budget allocation may be 
dependent upon a resolution to this question."
Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Jul 7, 2016, at 08:40, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 
wrote:
+1 to Paul, and let me add this --

On Sunday afternoon in Helsinki I presented my view that ICANN’s California 
non-profit incorporation should be made a Fundamental Bylaw, to sync with the 
facts that the revised Bylaws require both the PTI and EC to be so incorporated 
and for that to be Fundamental Bylaws, and that the entire accountability plan 
has been designed to fit within and function optimally within the context of 
California law. Based upon some of the comments that elicited, it seems clear 
that other members of the community have a very different perspective and want 
to address the question of changing jurisdictions.

I don’t think we should be asking the BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs whether the 
question of moving ICANN’s jurisdiction may arise in WS 2, as it is the 
community’s decision and not theirs. I think we should be telling them that it 
is quite likely to arise in WS 2 and that the budget should include the need 
for expert legal advice on that question if it arises.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:24 AM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, 
requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Hi James,

I thought we agreed to ask them in our correspondence whether or not the 
question of the location of ICANN’s corporate formation was an open question in 
WS2 so that we know how to analyze their budget (which seems very low if we 
have to undo WS1  and rebuild it in another jurisdiction – and evaluate all the 
possible jurisdictions for the “best” one).  Can we please include that in our 
letter and ask them for a crisp “yes” or “no”?

Best,
Paul



From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 8:11 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting 
webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Council Colleagues -
Following from our discussions in Helsinki, please see below for a draft letter 
(email) that will be sent to the BFC and the CCWG-ACCT Co Chairs.
Please let me know if you have any questions or edits.
Thank you -
J.
----------------------------------
Dear Members of the Board Finance Committee, Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs,
On behalf of the GNSO Council, I would like to request a webinar to brief the 
GNSO Council and the broader GNSO Community on the Proposed Cost Control 
Mechanisms, as well as the request for validation of the CCWG-Accountability 
Budget.
We appreciate the information provided by email and presented by Xavier during 
the GNSO meetings in Helsinki, but the GNSO Council would appreciate a clear 
overview of what, specifically, is being requested from the GNSO as a 
chartering organization, along the the expected timeframe for approval. As the 
next GNSO Council meeting is scheduled for 21 July, this webinar would ideally 
take place well before that meeting in order to provide GNSO Stakeholder Groups 
and Constituencies sufficient opportunity to review this information, and 
provide instructions to their representatives at the Council meeting.
Otherwise, because there is no Council in meeting scheduled for August, this 
topic will be taken up by the GNSO Council during its next meeting in September.
If needed, the GNSO Secretariat is available to assist with the planning and 
scheduling of the webinar.
Thank you,

James Bladel
GNSO Chair
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16