ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

  • To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:29:48 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=BRp0J5LAbW6KMrP8dCqMn3uIBDHR5eCHs7QHXAXwmTA=; b=aYvQLdA5yeO+IoKO7Gkucj7+XNjy4slx9PTxDgZVXHldA+9yuxlBPGQZgqSv5beKuEw/eRDLoj836f0+HV+hlOOObkFqBFjAp3fFf+CL0yqriD359aH6NiT73gCxTNhMvxwliQAZR+yN2LgjZAjoiHWkVljGf3FSZ5SRJdRtWnQ=
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
  • Thread-index: AQHSGDS5qGfwsqOmMkGsKnn9cCvinQ==
  • Thread-topic: Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910

Colleagues –

Attached and copied below, please find a modified version of this Motion.  As 
the maker of the original, I accept all changes as friendly amendments.

Many thanks to Phil, Ed, Paul, and Keith for working out the new language, and 
positioning us for a more efficient Council meeting on Thursday.

Thank you,


Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request


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 

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 
 a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at 
 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 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 

5.      The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials.


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.      The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this 
resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN 

Attachment: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request--REVISED.docx
Description: Draft Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request--REVISED.docx

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>