Thanks, Ed. Thoughtful contribution to the discussion, as always. And like you (& many others), I’m not keen on flushing the past 2 years of work by undertaking a redo of WS1. But I think the point stands that, even as a peripheral discussion, indulging a lengthy examination of ICANN’s jurisdiction has the potential to create significant cost overruns. Perhaps I could walk back the additional language to remove the last bit (threatening to withhold approval). Something like: “Of particular interest to many in the GNSO Community is the unresolved question of the scope of Work Stream 2, as it applies to the governing jurisdiction of ICANN. Please come prepared to this issue at the webinar.” If something like this is acceptable to you (and still satisfactory to Paul & Phil) we can take this approach. And I’d welcome thoughts from other Councilors on this as well. Thanks— J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 at 3:39 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms Hi everyone, Bruce is correct and, frankly, I'm not as concerned with the impact of the scope of WS2 jurisdiction on the budget and cost containment proposals for WS2 as are Paul and Phil.. If the nightmare scenario occurs and the CCWG has a collective change of heart and decides to move all ICANN jurisdiction to Tomorrowland (just down the street from Marina Del Ray, inside Disneyland), for example, the problems created will be far more than the impact on the budget. Our WS1 work product is based upon California jurisdiction. A change of jurisdiction at this point will require a complete redo, hiring of one or two different law firms with expertise in the new jurisdiction etc. IMHO it's an implausible scenario and not where our focus should be. It would be simple to create similar budget busting scenerios for other WS2 subgroups but they would be equally implausible. Happy to do so if you like but none of them are likely to happen. Don't forget: for any subgroup proposal to gain traction it would need to be approved by the entire CCWG. In March 2015 I proposed changing the requirement that ICANN be based in Los Angeles County to one where it could be based anywhere in California. That idea was shot down by the entire CCWG. I just don't see where a group which wouldn't consider the possibility of someday basing ICANN in San Diego would now seriously entertain the thought of moving it to Nevada, Newfoundland or Namibia. It's just not going to happen. I should also note that prioritising and giving legitimacy to the idea that changing jurisdiction is something under serious consideration empowers those in Washington who are desperately trying to kill the transition. I think the Webinar could be quite valuable. The legal costs are of particular concern to me. I'd like to get a bit more information as to the basis legal costs have / will be determined/approved, the expected breakdown of costs between Jones Day, Adler and Sidley, any retainer or agreement ICANN has with Jones Day that would prevent ICANN corporate from obtaining advice elsewhere on a more economical basis and whether we in the GNSO could direct the CCWG to utilise the less expensive of the two independent law firms when possible. As a member of the small CCWG legal sub team that hired both Sidley and Adler and privy to certain contractual information, I can state that there is a substantial cost difference between what ICANN is paying each of the firms. The cheaper firm should be used where possible to get the greatest value for the corporation. I'd prefer we don't include special language in the letter prioritising the question of jurisdiction (particularly since, as Bruce pointed out, that's not something the BFC or even the CCWG chairs can tell us: don't forget we are bottom up and the bottom has not yet definitively spoken) but I won't object to it's inclusion out of respect for my colleagues Paul and Phil. I would hope, however, that the webinar itself will not devolve into one focused on such an implausible scenario when more pressing and likely issues and outcomes could be discussed and deliberated. Thanks for considering, Ed Morris ________________________________ From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 8:18 AM To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms Hello James, Note that the Board doesn’t set the scope of Work stream 2 – that is the role of the chartering organizations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016 5:27 AM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms Hi Phil and Paul. Thanks for these thoughts, and to Paul for catching the omission of this topic. I agree that we should raise this, but the goal of this letter is to secure the webinar. We should, however, flag the subject as an X factor that we will be watching for in the webinar, and the work of WS2. How about we split the baby, by adding something along the lines of: "Of particular interest to many in the GNSO community is the unresolved question of the scope of Work Stream 2, as it applies to the governing jurisdiction of I can. Please come prepared to discuss this issue at the webinar, as our ultimate approval of this proposal and budget allocation may be dependent upon a resolution to this question." Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel GoDaddy On Jul 7, 2016, at 08:40, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: +1 to Paul, and let me add this -- On Sunday afternoon in Helsinki I presented my view that ICANN’s California non-profit incorporation should be made a Fundamental Bylaw, to sync with the facts that the revised Bylaws require both the PTI and EC to be so incorporated and for that to be Fundamental Bylaws, and that the entire accountability plan has been designed to fit within and function optimally within the context of California law. Based upon some of the comments that elicited, it seems clear that other members of the community have a very different perspective and want to address the question of changing jurisdictions. I don’t think we should be asking the BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs whether the question of moving ICANN’s jurisdiction may arise in WS 2, as it is the community’s decision and not theirs. I think we should be telling them that it is quite likely to arise in WS 2 and that the budget should include the need for expert legal advice on that question if it arises. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:24 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms Hi James, I thought we agreed to ask them in our correspondence whether or not the question of the location of ICANN’s corporate formation was an open question in WS2 so that we know how to analyze their budget (which seems very low if we have to undo WS1 and rebuild it in another jurisdiction – and evaluate all the possible jurisdictions for the “best” one). Can we please include that in our letter and ask them for a crisp “yes” or “no”? Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 8:11 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms Council Colleagues - Following from our discussions in Helsinki, please see below for a draft letter (email) that will be sent to the BFC and the CCWG-ACCT Co Chairs. Please let me know if you have any questions or edits. Thank you - J. ---------------------------------- Dear Members of the Board Finance Committee, Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs, On behalf of the GNSO Council, I would like to request a webinar to brief the GNSO Council and the broader GNSO Community on the Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms, as well as the request for validation of the CCWG-Accountability Budget. We appreciate the information provided by email and presented by Xavier during the GNSO meetings in Helsinki, but the GNSO Council would appreciate a clear overview of what, specifically, is being requested from the GNSO as a chartering organization, along the the expected timeframe for approval. As the next GNSO Council meeting is scheduled for 21 July, this webinar would ideally take place well before that meeting in order to provide GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies sufficient opportunity to review this information, and provide instructions to their representatives at the Council meeting. Otherwise, because there is no Council in meeting scheduled for August, this topic will be taken up by the GNSO Council during its next meeting in September. If needed, the GNSO Secretariat is available to assist with the planning and scheduling of the webinar. Thank you, James Bladel GNSO Chair ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16