Hello all, The recordings and transcript for the WP1 Meeting #24 held on 1 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/A55YAw Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org> ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will prepare Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Solidifying list of volunteers who will analyze comments by Oct 12: Budget, strat plan, op plan --> Jonathan Zuck, Cherine Chalaby, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Mary Uduma Standard Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon Fundamental Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon Individual Director removal --> Mike Chartier, Robin Gross Board removal --> Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg AoC --> Steve Del Bianco, Avri Doria, Carlos Raul Gutierrez Community forum --> Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Jorge Cancio CMSM --> Avri Doria, Robin Gross, Steve Del Bianco, Jorge Cancio, Samantha Eisner, Alan Greenberg Note: Jonathan Zuck is in process of summarizing outcome of breakout session on community decision-making ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to wp1@icann.org <mailto:wp1@icann.org> Budget, Strat Plan, Op Plan Comments are in favor of notion of better community empowerment for budget. This powers appears to be essential as a backstop. Concerns/divergences include: 1) allocation of votes. SOs control of budget over others; 2) Endless loop - it could lead to deadlock. Raising vote threshold for second veto ; 3) Power is overly broad; 4) Keep IANA budget separate; 5) What impact would this have on Board's liability/fiduciary responsibility Feedback: - Endless loop idea is that vetoes could block company to function. Having company run on a fixed budget could solve problem. Define rules of fallback budget. - LA discussions should be taken into account. It should include Board comments as well. --> Board comments reflected but LA input is not included. --> LA comments are not part of the tool - Strong criticism from community has to have more weight than individual. Comment "Fees from gTLD registrants fund over 95% of ICANN's revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence required on such matters" is shocking. There is no comment on budget veto when Board is trying to reduce budget significantly. This would have impact on fiduciary duty. --> Idea of budget needing to be cut is not something anticipated as a problem but it worthy a discussion. We created the problem when solving the loop problem. - We should not be weighting comments not defining weights. - RySG comment stems from concern that it may have a potential impact revenue side of budgeting - i.e. raising fees. - We are not weighting votes. Your task should be to review all comments equally. - There is credibility in looking at uses of resources. They tend to relate to gTLD activities. We need to pay attention to Chartering Organizations but more important for us to look at good ideas to resolve issues. - A breakdown of incomes may be helpful for information. Those who fund should be given more weight. Quorum is important - Any community powers should be exercised by community as a whole. It does not prejudge that community on income side could have special say when discussing issues at stake for veto. No discrimination between parts of community. Task ahead will be to expand on these ideas for consideration: * Line item veto - community identifies portions to veto in lieu of vetoing full budget; * On vote allocation, suggestion to cordon off where x has influence; * Clarify language on PTI Should WP1 address this issue for CCWG? Strong consensus when we can - if not, we will present options. Cherine is speaking in personal capacity but happy to take discussion back to the Board. Cherine will not be talking about enforceability. Board has submitted his comments and wishes to explain requirements. Strategic Plan & Operating plan --> There are three requirements: 1) they should be developed with community 2) they should be subject to community approval; 3) they should be consistent with purpose, mission, role as set out in articles and bylaws. In terms of operating plan, it should be consistent with 5-year strategic plan, developed by community and consistent with purpose, mission, role as set out in articles and bylaws. Budget --> It has to do with annual budget and operating plan. It has to be developed with community. The community views must be heard, and taken seriously and timely. Board should balance community interest and avoid discrimination. Ability to align costs with revenues and not jeopardize stability of ICANN. There should be a formal process between Board and community to resolve issues before it is approved. We want to avoid budget paralysis - endless loop - we want to approve budget that is more properly allocated for current fiscal. We want to ensure strategic plan and operating plan are on target and that organization's ability to deliver on important initiatives are not jeopardize. We want to ensure stable operation of IANA functions. Board retain ability to approve expenses not budgeted. Board should be allow to act in case of unforeseen matters that put ICANN's mission at risk. Any expenses throughout fiscal year not the in strategic plan and not in articles, mission, bylaws should be subject to community objection. Community should have real involvement in operating plan and budget. Community would be able to object deviations from operating plan, mission etc. This is in alignment with Board's fiduciary duty and addresses community comments. There has to be a way to ensure that new initiatives are subject to objections. ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will prepare Groups presenting on upcoming calls (Monday & Tuesday): * AoC (Monday) * Board Removal (Monday-tentative) * Standard Bylaws/Fundamental Bylaws (Tuesday) * Individual Board removal (Tuesday) * Final two groups for Thursday Use Jonathan Zuck's document as a template. Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/To%20Dublin%20and%... modificationDate=1443718617000&api=v2> To Dublin and beyond.pdf (slide 4) * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/Budget%20and%20Str... 2%5B1%5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1443712871000&api=v2> Budget and Strategic Plan Veto-PC2[1].docx | <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/Budget%20and%20Str... 2%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443712889000&api=v2> Budget and Strategic Plan Veto-PC2[1].pdf