[council] RE: Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
- To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] RE: Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:27:56 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- In-reply-to: <2E9D38A3-BE9A-498E-96F1-801E82CF4228@godaddy.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <2E9D38A3-BE9A-498E-96F1-801E82CF4228@godaddy.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHSGDS5qGfwsqOmMkGsKnn9cCvinaCMWcFg
- Thread-topic: Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request
Thank you James, and thanks to Keith, Ed, and Paul for their cooperation and
I hope that this revised language can be accepted at Thursday’s Council meeting.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:30 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Revised Motion - GSNO Validation of CCWG-Accountability
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.
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
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13076 - Release Date: 09/24/16