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

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

Obviously "I can" = "ICANN".  Sorry about that. Hazards of asking a mobile 
device to take dictation.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel


On Jul 7, 2016, at 22:31, James M. Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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