Here is the CWG dependency…nothing about legal enforceability as far as I can see… CCWG Accountability Dependencies Enumeration of the relevant accountability mechanisms relating to the IANA Budget: · The ability for the community to approve or veto the ICANN budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it comes into effect. The community may reject the ICANN Budget based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, mission and role set forth in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community. The CWG-Stewardship recommends that the IFO’s comprehensive costs should be transparent and ICANN’s operating plans and budget should include itemization of all IANA operations costs to the project level and below as needed. An itemization of IANA costs would include “Direct Costs for the IANA department”, “Direct Costs for shared resources” and “Support functions allocation”. Furthermore, these costs should be itemized into more specific costs related to each specific function to the project level and below as needed. PTI should also have a yearly budget that is reviewed and approved by the ICANN community on an annual basis. PTI should submit a budget to ICANN at least nine months in advance of the fiscal year to ensure the stability of the IANA services. It is the view of the CWG-Stewardship that the IANA budget should be approved by the ICANN Board in a much earlier timeframe than the overall ICANN budget. The CWG (or a successor implementation group) will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review, which may become a component of the overall budget review. Cheers, Chris
On 25 Jun 2015, at 05:37 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
But, Becky, how do you see your less than nuclear option working then? We sue the board because they are not respecting the powers given to the community in the bylaws, the court decides, the community gets its way and then the board and community live happy together ever after?
Seems to me like suing your spouse to respect the wedding vows and then not divorcing…
You mean you disagree with: "if the community has to have it’s veto of the budget legally enforced, the disconnect between the board and the community is so complete, that the board would have to (be forced to) resign.”?
Are you not making a theoretical distinction which in practice will not be there?
Cheers,
Roelof
From: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: woensdag 24 juni 2015 16:25 To: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] revised deck
That’s important information Roelof. My understanding – which could of course be wrong – is that the CWG contingency requires “enforceable” budget authority but if that is not correct we should definitely correct the record.
I understand your point on the resignation authority as adequate for enforcement. Personally, I view that as a nuclear and very disruptive authority. Also personally speaking, in my experience, nuclear options tend to generate mutual assured destruction responses. That means the option is really no longer effective. So, I personally place no stock in the spill the board authority. I would strongly prefer to have authorities that can actually be exercised, and the budget/strat plan powers seem both very fundamental and much less catastrophic.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] revised deck
Becky, all,
I am aware that I risk beginning to sound like an old record.
But the phrase: "the designator approach does not deliver full authority on budget and therefore jeopardize meeting CWG conditions.” needs clarification in my opinion. And possibly correction.
Because with “full authority” I assume that you mean legal enforceability. Many might not understand that. Additionaly, I am unsure if the CWG conditions go as far as to specify that the community’s position on (or: veto of) the budget should (in itself) be legally enforceable. If however that is the case, I think it is a silly condition that needs revision. Like I said this morning: if the community has to have it’s veto of the budget legally enforced, the disconnect between the board and the community is so complete, that the board would have to (be forced to) resign. So there’s no need at all for a condition that the mechanism should deliver full authority on the budget.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date: woensdag 24 juni 2015 14:44 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] revised deck
I have modified the Empowered SO/SC Model deck to reflect some of the issues that have come up in our discussions since Friday. Please don’t be concerned if it does not reflect an issue of particular concern to you - this is still very much a discussion draft.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2
To amplify on Keith’s point – we must get it done right, and in a timely fashion. I see both as mandatory criteria. Neither objective should – or need be – sacrificed in the name of the other. We have a window of opportunity that may close, at least for some period of time, as 2016 progresses.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz
From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Date: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Cc: "directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>" <directors@omadhina.net <mailto:directors@omadhina.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2
Thank you Kavouss and Jonathan and Jordan.
We need to get our work done correctly AND in a timely manner to enable a successful transition.
I believe we can do both. They are not mutually exclusive.
That is precisely why we agreed to bifurcate our work into WS-1 and WS-2.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Agree with Jonathan We must concentrate on priority actions Pls do not involve us in something which is not pressing . We have littlke time We do not want to spent hours and hours on these like those hours that we wasted on UA. We were misled and we do not want to do it again The working method and priorities must be identified and decided at the level of the main group and not at the level of working parties Regards Kavouss
2015-06-23 0:23 GMT+02:00 Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com <mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>>:
Hi Colleagues,
In agreement with Dr. Lisse, we need to get it right nonetheless the essence of strategy is choosing what not to do. (Michael Porter)
On 6/23/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
he's wrong. As usual.
We need to get it right. Not get it done.
Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@actonline.org <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote:
I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).
But we can't do that in WS1
Jonathan Zuck President ACT: The App Association http://Www.ACTonline.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__Www.ACTonline.org&d=AwMF...>
From: Jordan Carter Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:19 PM To: Accountability CCWG
Hi all
I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)
One is something I wanted to test others' views on.
Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.
Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.
I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.
But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.
To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.
So: my interpretation has always been as follows:
Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.
To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.
Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?
Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!
thanks Jordan
[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_in... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theregister.co.uk_20...>
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.otienobarrack.me.ke_...> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community