Re: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Phil, this looks good to me.

Regards,
Keith


On Sep 24, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Paul and Edward, thanks for the feedback.

I can work up some draft language for the four of us to consider, and if we can 
reach consensus we can share it with the rest of Council.

That work?

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 Edward Morris
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Phil Corwin; Drazek, Keith; Paul McGrady
Cc: James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Paul,

Thank you for everything you've done to focus our attention on the possibility 
of budget implosion.

I agree that Phil has done a great job of bridging the gaps. Please include me, 
as well, on future e-mail exchanges.

Thanks,

Ed



________________________________
From: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 2:38 PM
To: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Drazek, Keith" 
<kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "GNSO 
Council List" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Phil, Keith and Ed,

Thanks so much for your leadership on this.  I am happy to participate in that 
email exchange and think, based on Phil’s last email, that we are already quite 
close.

Best,
Paul


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:11 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; James 
M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Keith:

Apologies for the delay in replying but it’s been a busy week.

Glad that you personally agree with my assessment – and I assure you that I 
share the RySG concern about budget creep. So does the BC generally, although 
on our BC call yesterday there was some concern that the draft Resolution takes 
a somewhat inflexible stand on obtaining additional funding if it is necessary 
to complete the work on key issues such as ICANN transparency.

I don’t think that in the six days between now and the Council call where this 
Resolution will be considered we will have the bandwidth to review all of the 
WS2 subgroups, get feedback from the rapporteurs, and guesstimate which ones 
are more likely to make valid claims for the use of outside counsel, much less 
project what such use might cost. Also, given that there is a Legal Committee 
to perform the review function for such outside counsel requests, it may be 
inappropriate for Council to interject on which topics are more deserving of 
outside legal input.

That said, looking at the draft Resolution, I’d posit that 90% of it is 
non-controversial and that the part we’ve been discussing could probably be 
made broadly acceptable with some modest wordsmithing to make the points that:

•         Council expects the working groups to be restrained and judicious in 
their use of outside legal assistance, and the Legal Committee to exercise 
reasonable and effective controls on such expenditures

•         The aim should be to work within the constraints of the approved 
budget, and any additional expenditures beyond it should be approved only when 
deemed essential to completing the work (a tough standard but not as harsh as 
the “extraordinary circumstances’ standard that is in the draft).

•         Council expects that the working groups will receive necessary 
support and assistance from ICANN staff.

•          Council believes that revisiting the jurisdiction or organization of 
the ICANN legal entity should not be undertaken by the Jurisdiction subgroup 
because the new accountability measures are all premised on California 
jurisdiction, any near-term changes in organizational jurisdiction could be 
extremely destabilizing for ICANN -- and because such exploration would likely 
require outside  legal input substantially in excess of the WS2 budget (this is 
a nuanced difference from the current draft, which seems to say that such 
exploration should be viewed as out of scope solely for budgetary reasons).

What I would propose is that you and I, along with Paul and Ed if they wish 
given their input on this (but certainly not excluding any other Councilor who 
wishes to be involved) exchange some emails between now and the Council meeting 
to see if we can’t work up some proposed modifications that would satisfy 
everyone’s concerns and could be adopted as a friendly amendment on next week’s 
call.

Is that feasible?

Best regards, Philip

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: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:00 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Paul McGrady; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Thanks Phil. Speaking personally, I agree generally with your assessment. That 
said, the RySG still has significant concerns about the potential for budget 
creep. Just thinking out loud...could we make explicit, or carve out, the very 
limited and specific areas where we think the WS2 effort needs to have a bit 
more flexibility? Regardless, I fully expect the Board would need to approve 
any increase to the CCWG WS2 budget.

Regards,
Keith

On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Keith et al:

Thanks for conveying the views of the RySG, and for pointing out some key 
exchanges between CEO Marby and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
this subject.

I think it’s important for Council members to disaggregate the question of 
availability of funding for independent legal advice to WS2 subgroups from the 
question of ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction. While the latter question 
could require substantial outside legal advice(but probably will not, as the 
subgroup does not seem inclined to delve deeply into it), it should probably 
not dictate our views on the draft Resolution addressing the former.

The Jurisdiction subgroup met this morning; Paul was on the call, and other 
Council members may have been. Almost the entire call was dedicated to 
discussing these two questions:
                2. Approach to ICANN’s Place of Incorporation and Headquarters 
Location
a. Should the scope of the Jurisdiction topic include examining the effects of 
ICANN's place of incorporation and location (for example, on the actual 
operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and on the settlement of 
disputes), or should this be out of scope?
b. Should the scope of the Jurisdiction topic include the possibility of 
recommending that ICANN be directed to change its place of incorporation and/or 
headquarters location, or should this be out of scope?

The consensus within the group seemed to favor not using a restricted version 
of the subgroup’s “scope” to prevent any discussion of the matter – but to not 
spend much time on it if it seemed clear that the majority of the subgroup did 
not favor any change in ICANN’s own jurisdiction, and instead address such 
issues as choice of law in ICANN contracts and jurisdictional matters relevant 
to ICANN hubs and offices outside the U.S. And it did seem clear that the 
majority of the groups’ participants do not wish to delve deeply into and 
reopen the matter of ICANN’s U.S. incorporation. So I think the prospects of 
significant sums of outside legal advice being requested on that are quite low.

My own personal view on this ICANN jurisdiction matter is well known, as I have 
both written about it and spoke at the Helsinki lightning round --  I favor 
memorializing ICANN’s U.S. incorporation in a Fundamental Bylaw, as has already 
been done for the Empowered Community and the PTI.  But I have no plans to push 
that position if the consensus within the subgroup is to move on to other 
jurisdictional matters.

So any concern I have about the adequacy of the budget for outside legal 
support of WS2 subgroups is unrelated to the jurisdiction matter, and is 
grounded in my belief that ICANN legal may not be counted on to give fully 
comprehensive advice on such matters as transparency/document access, and staff 
and Board accountability standards. WS2 issues were put off not because they 
are unimportant, but because they were not required to be resolved in advance 
of the transition.

My understanding of the cost control measures for WS2 are that any expenditure 
of funds for outside legal counsel must be considered and approved by the Legal 
Committee, and that any request for funding beyond the $1.4 million being 
allocated must be approved by that same Legal Committee and then approved by 
the Board. Those are tight controls not present in WS1.

With that background, and turning to the draft Resolution, I would propose 
consideration of:

•         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.

•         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.

I hope those thoughts are useful to other Council members as they consider this 
matter.

Best to all, Philip
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: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Paul McGrady; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Further, on the topic of ICANN’s jurisdiction, it’s probably worth noting the 
testimony of Goran Marby before last week’s Senate Judiciary hearing Chaired by 
Senator Cruz.

Here’s the link to the hearing webcast: 
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-internet-freedom-implications-of-ending-us-oversight-of-the-internet

At 1:24:24, Goran responds to questions from Senators Lee, Grassley and Cruz on 
ICANN’s incorporation, bylaws, headquarters, etc.


•         Senator Lee asks, “Is ICANN committed to remain domiciled in the 
United States?”  Goran’s response is “Yes.” He also notes that the basis of 
ICANN is built on California law, not to mention its 2000+ contracts.

•         In response to a question from Senator Grassley about ICANN 
relocating, Goran says, “It would be very hard to do. It would be easier to 
start a new ICANN elsewhere without California law as basis.”

•         In response to a question from Senator Cruz, Goran says, “There is no 
intention (to relocate ICANN). It would be highly improbable.

We should be prudent with both time and money and avoid diving into the rathole 
of changing ICANN’s jurisdiction or domicile.

Regards,
Keith


From: Drazek, Keith
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:09 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Paul McGrady; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Thanks Phil and Paul for the input.

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.

Regards,
Keith

On Sep 20, 2016, at 4:44 PM, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Appreciate the thoughts, Paul.

In his role as rapporteur for the Jurisdiction subgroup, Greg Shatan has 
circulated thoughts this week on whether and how deeply the Jurisdiction 
subgroup should explore the subject of ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction, and 
that will be the focus of the next subgroup call at 1300 UTC tomorrow. So its 
intent in that regard may be clearer within the next 24 hours.

Setting aside the jurisdiction issue, I would like to see the GNSO statement on 
this express some concern that the amount budgeted for impartial outside legal 
assistance may be inadequate, and to endorse  a lower threshold for making 
additional funds available if recommended by the Legal Committee – and 
certainly not the “extraordinary circumstances” standard proposed in the 
current draft.

One thought I have is that the expenditure ceiling might be loosened somewhat 
by advocating that up to an additional $700,000 be available to be allocated (a 
50% increase beyond the $1.4M now budgeted) solely upon a finding by the Legal 
Committee that such expenditure is justified, with a higher standard in place 
for requests that would take spending beyond that. That might prove a 
reasonable balance between wanting to assure adequate resources while  keeping 
spending under control.

Best to all,
Philip

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: Paul McGrady [mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:34 PM
To: Phil Corwin; 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of 
CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

Thanks Phil.  I’ll need to run this past the IPC of course, but my initial 
thoughts are:

I guess I read James’ rather artful language as a means of pointing out the 
lack of adequate funding rather than an instruction that WS2 shouldn’t look at 
the formation jurisdiction issue.  Perhaps we can strengthen the language a bit 
to make that clear.  How about:

“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.”

Does that work?

In a related thought, I’m of the opposite view that formation jurisdiction or 
nature of organization of the ICANN legal entity should not be reopened in WS2 
as it is not inevitable that it turn out the way you hope, with a fundamental 
bylaw making California permanent (or as permanent as possible).

Best,
Paul


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 5:40 PM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] RE: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability 
Budget Request
Importance: High

James:

The following remarks are my personal views, and I will share them with the BC 
Executive Committee and BC members prior to our September 29th meeting to 
assure that any statement I make/position I take at that meeting is consistent 
with the consensus within the BC.

That said, I have some significant concerns about the wording of the draft 
Resolution, and shall now set them forth.

Use of Budget Constraints to limit range of discussion within WGs_-

Your cover note states, “I would like to draw your attention to WHEREAS #4 and 
RESOLVED #4, in which I attempted to capture the concerns raised by Phil and 
Paul and others regarding revisiting the subject of ICANN Jurisdiction in WS2”. 
My comments on this draft resolution are solely my own and I will let Paul 
chime in, or not, as he sees fit.

Whereas #4 states --  “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.”

Resolved #4 states – “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.”

My very public personal position on ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction is that 
it was a mistake not to resolve this matter during WS1 (and the failure to do 
so is now being cited by Congressional critics of the IANA Transition), and 
that ICANN’s U.S. incorporation should be enshrined in a Fundamental Bylaw as 
an expedited outcome of WS2.

Notwithstanding that clear personal view, I have concerns about the proposed 
language cited above. For one thing, it is presently ambiguous – it is not 
clear whether the import of the language is that:

•         The projected budget should be increased so that “the topic of the 
jurisdiction of ICANN”s organization” can be revisited or addressed (the word 
“revisited” is also problematic, as it implies that some conclusive decision 
was made on this matter during WS2, whereas the record is to the contrary), or

•         The topic of organizational jurisdiction should be off-limits in WS2 
due to budget constraints

Again, my personal view is that this topic of ICANN’s organizational 
jurisdiction should be further addressed in WS2 – and should be definitively 
resolved through the adoption of a Fundamental Bylaw enshrining US 
incorporation.

Notwithstanding that personal view, I am opposed to any Resolution which takes 
the position that budget considerations should limit the scope of inquiry and 
discussion of any WS2 subgroup. The budget, and especially that for impartial 
outside legal expertise on accountability matters on which ICANN Legal may have 
an inherent bias (such as transparency or staff accountability) should be 
adequate to support the necessary work, rather than suggesting that the work 
should be constrained to fit within the scope of the budget.

Adequacy of the budget for outside legal expertise

The other problem I have with the draft Resolution is that it does not speak at 
all to the general concerns I and others have expressed about the adequacy of 
the budget for outside legal expertise for WS2 activities, as well as the 
proposed process for obtaining authorization of additional funding.

My recollection is that the WS2 legal budget is just one-tenth of the amounts 
expended for WS1 -- $1.4M compared to $14M. I would certainly anticipate that 
WS2 outside legal expenses will be substantially less than in WS1 because major 
revisions and drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation will not be 
required. Yet there is still reason to believe that a 90% reduction is 
excessively severe and likely to fall short of requirements for a quality and 
fully considered work product.

It is also my recollection that under the proposed budget and accompanying 
procedures, even if the Legal Committee agrees that additional funding is 
required at some point in the process, the Board has unbridled discretion and 
decisional authority to accept, reject, or modify such a request for additional 
funds. This is very troubling given that WS2 addresses such matters as 
organizational transparency, and Board and staff accountability.

Therefore, at this time I cannot personally support the proposed language in 
Resolved clause #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.” (Emphasis added)

An “extraordinary circumstances” standard for authorizing additional funds is, 
in my opinion, far too high given that the budget for WS2 was set by a small 
group and only put out for public reaction after the fact. Further, it is 
absolutely unacceptance as a standard for consideration of additional funding 
requests – every such request should be considered without bias on its own 
separate merits, and not face a high hurdle simply because it exceeds a legal 
assistance budget that some Council and community members already fear may be 
inadequate to support the necessary work delegated to WS2.

Summing up, my personal view is that this Resolution should be modified to:

1.       Eliminate any suggestion that discussion of ICANN’s organizational 
locus of incorporation is off-limits for the Jurisdiction subgroup based upon 
budget considerations

2.       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.

I thank you and my fellow Councilors for considering these views, and look 
forward to further discussion of this matter.

Regards, Philip



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 James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:02 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget 
Request

Council Colleagues -

Attached and copied below, please find a draft motion for consideration during 
our next GNSO Council call (29 SEP), that examines the subject of the proposed 
budget & cost control mechanisms for CCWG-ACCT and Work Stream 2.

In particular, I would like to draw your attention to WHEREAS #4 and RESOLVED 
#4, in which I attempted to capture the concerns raised by Phil and Paul and 
others regarding revisiting the subject of ICANN Jurisdiction in WS2.  Please 
review these provisions closely, and make sure that they accurately reflect 
these points.

Thank you,

J.



Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

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<https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-bfc-ccwg-accountability-chairs-10jul16-en.pdf>
 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.


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 (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.


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.


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.


________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13026 - Release Date: 09/16/16
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13026 - Release Date: 09/16/16
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13026 - Release Date: 09/16/16
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13026 - Release Date: 09/16/16
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13076 - Release Date: 09/24/16