On Jul 14, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good morning: Which revenue stream does CCWG use to finance its independent counsel?
Christopher - In a world where the Internet [names, numbers, protocol] identifier communities were clear and distinct organizations which contracted with ICANN for operation of the IANA registry services (and/or for facilitation for their policy development processes if they so choose), then ICANN’s revenue stream would consist predominantly of the service fees from providing those functions. In such a situation, it would quite reasonable for the respective communities to fund the independent legal counsel expenses that might result from an accountability review process. However, the world in which we presently operate appears to have ICANN serving as the structure by which the names community comes together and is represented, and it is the very accountability of this representation that is under review and requires independent legal counsel. It would be prudent for ICANN (as the structure by which the names community comes together and is represented) to figure out an appropriate way to fund the independent counsel expenses, as the inability to so do would only serve as prima facie evidence of failure to adequately represent that community. /John Disclaimers: my views alone - Accountability CCWG individual participant