Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
Hello Leon, Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals. Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote: Hi all, If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC. I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it. Best regards, León El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> escribió: Dear all, Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget: *The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,* ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> a écrit : Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion Good morning Alan, First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO. Let’s do it. That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome. No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful. Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks. Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not? I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN. Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them) Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> a écrit : I agree that 1-4 is to just support. We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. *Vanda Scartezini* *Polo Consultores Associados* *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * *Sorry for any typos. * *From: *<alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM *To: *'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved. Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that: - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them; - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this. Should we take any action? For example: a) Support 1-5 as noted above; b) explicitly not support one or more of the points; c) be silent; d) some other variant? Alan *From:* Marika Konings *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM *To:* Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> *Subject:* Adopted motion *Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request* Made By: James Bladel Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek WHEREAS, 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 https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf ). 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 requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg- accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf , 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 Bylaws. 5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials. RESOLVED, 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 requests 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 CFO. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann. org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Thanks Seun, While I agree with the principles of your thoughts, I would tend to disagree on mixing pears and apples. Let me explain. If we draft a comment on the budget, which is what we were asked to do, but include a whole position on where we think the jurisdiction group should stand, then I believe we would be mixing subjects and risking to have our comment on the budget be distorted by the issue on jurisdiction. On the other hand, if we draft a comment and, as the GNSO did, express our advice on keeping a close eye on legal fees related to all issues but specially those on jurisdiction, I think we would accomplish the task of commenting on the budget and also stating our point. If in anyway we want to dedicate a statement to the implications on having the jurisdiction discussion deviate from the scope clearly stated in our WS1 recommendations, then I would support it as well but as a separate document. That’s only my opinion, of course. Best regards, León
El 06/10/2016, a las 21:22, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Leon,
Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction.
Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals.
Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Hi all,
If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC.
I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> escribió:
Dear all,
Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget:
The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>> a écrit :
Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>>
De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Cc : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
Good morning Alan,
First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO.
Let’s do it.
That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome.
No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful.
Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks.
Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not?
I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN.
Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them)
Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> a écrit :
I agree that 1-4 is to just support. We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <tel:%2B55%2011%203266.6253> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <tel:%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> Sorry for any typos.
From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM To: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved.
Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that:
- Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them;
- I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this.
Should we take any action? For example:
a) Support 1-5 as noted above;
b) explicitly not support one or more of the points;
c) be silent;
d) some other variant?
Alan
> From: Marika Konings > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM > To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> > Subject: Adopted motion > > Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request > > Made By: James Bladel > Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek > > WHEREAS, > > 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 https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf> ). > > 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 requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23... <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23...> , recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3> and AC recording athttps://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/ <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 Bylaws. > > 5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials. > > RESOLVED, > > 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 requests 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 CFO.
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Thanks Leon, your explanation makes sense and I fully agree. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Oct 2016 3:38 a.m., "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Seun,
While I agree with the principles of your thoughts, I would tend to disagree on mixing pears and apples. Let me explain.
If we draft a comment on the budget, which is what we were asked to do, but include a whole position on where we think the jurisdiction group should stand, then I believe we would be mixing subjects and risking to have our comment on the budget be distorted by the issue on jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if we draft a comment and, as the GNSO did, express our advice on keeping a close eye on legal fees related to all issues but specially those on jurisdiction, I think we would accomplish the task of commenting on the budget and also stating our point.
If in anyway we want to dedicate a statement to the implications on having the jurisdiction discussion deviate from the scope clearly stated in our WS1 recommendations, then I would support it as well but as a separate document.
That’s only my opinion, of course.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 21:22, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Leon,
Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction.
Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals.
Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Hi all,
If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC.
I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> escribió:
Dear all,
Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget:
*The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,*
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> a écrit :
Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
Good morning Alan,
First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO.
Let’s do it.
That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome.
No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful.
Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks.
Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not?
I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN.
Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them)
Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> a écrit :
I agree that 1-4 is to just support. We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. *Vanda Scartezini* *Polo Consultores Associados* *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004* *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil* *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <%2B55%2011%203266.6253>* *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> * *Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *<alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM *To: *'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved.
Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that:
- Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them;
- I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this.
Should we take any action? For example:
a) Support 1-5 as noted above;
b) explicitly not support one or more of the points;
c) be silent;
d) some other variant?
Alan
*From:* Marika Konings *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM *To:* Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> *Subject:* Adopted motion
*Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request* Made By: James Bladel Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek
WHEREAS,
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 https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/ pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf ).
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 requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accoun tability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf , 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 Bylaws.
5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials.
RESOLVED,
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 requests 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 CFO.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.or g/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Well said Leon. I totally agree with your summation Holly On 7 Oct 2016, at 1:38 pm, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Thanks Seun,
While I agree with the principles of your thoughts, I would tend to disagree on mixing pears and apples. Let me explain.
If we draft a comment on the budget, which is what we were asked to do, but include a whole position on where we think the jurisdiction group should stand, then I believe we would be mixing subjects and risking to have our comment on the budget be distorted by the issue on jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if we draft a comment and, as the GNSO did, express our advice on keeping a close eye on legal fees related to all issues but specially those on jurisdiction, I think we would accomplish the task of commenting on the budget and also stating our point.
If in anyway we want to dedicate a statement to the implications on having the jurisdiction discussion deviate from the scope clearly stated in our WS1 recommendations, then I would support it as well but as a separate document.
That’s only my opinion, of course.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 21:22, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> escribió:
Hello Leon,
Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction.
Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals.
Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote: Hi all,
If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC.
I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> escribió:
Dear all,
Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget:
The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> a écrit :
Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>
De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Cc : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
Good morning Alan,
First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO.
Let’s do it.
That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome.
No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful.
Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks.
Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not?
I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN.
Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them)
Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> a écrit :
I agree that 1-4 is to just support. We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.
From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM To: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
> There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved. > > Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that: > > - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them; > > - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this. > > Should we take any action? For example: > > a) Support 1-5 as noted above; > > b) explicitly not support one or more of the points; > > c) be silent; > > d) some other variant? > > Alan > > >> From: Marika Konings >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM >> To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> >> Subject: Adopted motion >> >> Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request >> >> Made By: James Bladel >> Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek >> >> WHEREAS, >> >> 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 https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf ). >> >> 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 requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23... , recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 and AC recording athttps://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 Bylaws. >> >> 5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials. >> >> RESOLVED, >> >> 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 requests 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 CFO. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Dear all, For your information, I put hereafter the Jurisdiction recommendation of the CCWG Work Stream 1 final report; you can find it in Annex 12 of the so-called final report: Jurisdiction Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN’s accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN is incorporated under the laws of the U.S. State of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the CCWG-Accountability. ICANN is a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to applicable California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction. ICANN is subject to a provision in paragraph eight of the Affirmation of Commitments, signed in 2009 between ICANN and the U.S. Government. ICANN’s Bylaws (Article XVIII) also state that its principal offices shall be in California. The CCWG-Accountability has acknowledged that jurisdiction is a multi-layered issue and has identified the following "layers”: Place and jurisdiction of incorporation and operations, including governance of internal affairs, tax system, human resources, etc. Jurisdiction of places of physical presence. Governing law for contracts with registrars and registries and the ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction about contractual relationships. Ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction for action or inaction of staff and for redress and review of Board action or inaction, including as relates to IRP outcomes and other accountability and transparency issues, including the Affirmation of Commitments. Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression. Meeting NTIA requirements. At this point in the CCWG-Accountability’s work, the main issues that need to be investigated within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN´s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated: Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will focus on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues and include: o Confirming and assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns regarding the multi-layer jurisdiction issue. o Identifying potential alternatives and benchmarking their ability to match all CCWG-Accountability requirements using the current framework. o Consider potential Work Stream 2 recommendations based on the conclusions of this analysis. A specific Subgroup of the CCWG-Accountability will be formed to undertake this work. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 7 oct. 2016 à 10:26, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> a écrit :
Well said Leon. I totally agree with your summation
Holly On 7 Oct 2016, at 1:38 pm, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Thanks Seun,
While I agree with the principles of your thoughts, I would tend to disagree on mixing pears and apples. Let me explain.
If we draft a comment on the budget, which is what we were asked to do, but include a whole position on where we think the jurisdiction group should stand, then I believe we would be mixing subjects and risking to have our comment on the budget be distorted by the issue on jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if we draft a comment and, as the GNSO did, express our advice on keeping a close eye on legal fees related to all issues but specially those on jurisdiction, I think we would accomplish the task of commenting on the budget and also stating our point.
If in anyway we want to dedicate a statement to the implications on having the jurisdiction discussion deviate from the scope clearly stated in our WS1 recommendations, then I would support it as well but as a separate document.
That’s only my opinion, of course.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 21:22, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> escribió:
Hello Leon,
Thanks for your comment, I don't think commenting on the budget alone will be enough. I will suggest that while we comment on the budget, we should also be explicitly clear on our position about jurisdiction.
Apart from the fact that the current scope would actually contribute significantly to the legal fees later, going beyond the scope will not only increase the cost but also waste volunteers time. I have no idea why we need to discuss ICANN incorporation at this time; it's just a very wrong time to do such and could send very wrong signals.
Overall we can't restrict/control freedom of speech, what is important is that it is clear to the sub-groups what outcome is expected from them.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Oct 2016 02:45, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: Hi all,
If I am reading correctly, I think Alan’s, Tijani's and Sebastian's thoughts are aligned. The only thing to do is to draft a position that reflects this thoughts, with which I agree by the way, and have it vote by the ALAC.
I cannot offer to draft the position but I will be glad to contribute. I also think it is important that we signal towards not widening the scope of the jurisdiction group and if establishing a budget constrain is the way to do it, then I would support it.
Best regards,
León
El 06/10/2016, a las 16:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> escribió:
Dear all,
Here is my proposal for the ALAC motion regarding the CCWG WS2 Budget:
The At-Large Advisory Committee hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 6 oct. 2016 à 09:45, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>> a écrit :
Hello, See in Tijani mail. Thanks SeB
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 <tel:%2B33%206%2007%2066%2089%2033> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>>
De : <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date : jeudi 6 octobre 2016 09:45 À : Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Cc : ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion
Good morning Alan,
First of all, I don’t think that it is wise to support or comment on another chartering organization (GNSO) statement regarding the budget approval of the CCWG. It is our duty and our right to give our own statement since we are also a chartering organization, exactly like the GNSO.
Let’s do it.
That said, I find the point 5 of the GNSO statement absolutely not acceptable. It means that the GNSO is deciding on the Jurisdiction sub-group outcome.
No it is not. It is time for the chartering org to take some action if needed. And this one is important. I think it is useful that we discuss this issue and give clear guidance to WS2 and sub-groups. It must be an ALAC/At-Large decision. If we want the WS2 to deliver on time, clarifying some issue (like jurisdiction) by the WS2 plenary or the Chartering organizations can be useful.
Let me remind everyone that the Jurisdiction sub-group has a precise and binding list of tasks provided by annex 12 of the CCWG WS1 final report that has been adopted by the whole CCWG and ratified by the whole charting organizations. it is not the right of the GNSO or any other party to take of the table one of those tasks.
Not one but if we have an agreement from all the chattering org, why not?
I understand their point (and the one of Alan), but they have to act from inside the Jurisdiction sub-group as they are numerous there to make the subgroup not ask for legal advices for the first layer of jurisdiction concerning the incorporation and the location of ICANN.
Finaly, I’m of the opinion of ALAC not commenting on GNSO position and drafting its own statement giving our approval for the budget as it was debated and agreed on in the CCWG accountability (GNSO points 1 to 4 are all included so no need to repeat them)
Sorry but where it is incorporated in an ALAC statement? I may have missed something. Thanks for consideration. SeB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 5 oct. 2016 à 19:45, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> a écrit : > > I agree that 1-4 is to just support. > We can clearly state that we can not see budget alocated to issue 5 – which I believe there is no hurry for this. > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 > 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil > Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <tel:%2B55%2011%203266.6253> > Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <tel:%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> > Sorry for any typos. > > > From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 2:42 PM > To: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: Adopted motion > >> There is an ongoing ALAC consensus call regarding approval of the FY17 CCWG Accountability WS2 budget and process which ends tomorrow. Based on the comments received to date, it will be approved. >> >> Below is the GNSO Motion approving the budget and process. I thank Sébastien for calling my attention to it. My assumption is that: >> >> - Resolved 1-4 were implied in the proposal, but there is no harm in reiterating them; >> >> - I think that we cannot stop the issue of jurisdiction/organization (Resolved 5) from being discussed, but I would not want to see an explicit funding (as in legal costs) going into this. >> >> Should we take any action? For example: >> >> a) Support 1-5 as noted above; >> >> b) explicitly not support one or more of the points; >> >> c) be silent; >> >> d) some other variant? >> >> Alan >> >> >>> From: Marika Konings >>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:33 PM >>> To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org <mailto:Glen@icann.org>> >>> Subject: Adopted motion >>> >>> Motion - GNSO Validation of CCWG-Accountability Budget Request >>> >>> Made By: James Bladel >>> Seconded by: Julf Helsingius, Keith Drazek >>> >>> WHEREAS, >>> >>> 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 https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfpklU5q6Ojg.pdf> ). >>> >>> 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 requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23... <https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23...> , recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3> and AC recording athttps://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/ <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 Bylaws. >>> >>> 5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials. >>> >>> RESOLVED, >>> >>> 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 requests 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 CFO. > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (4)
-
Holly Raiche -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA