Community approval would problematic at the least. The Board approves the budget. The reserve power is for the community to veto and send it back. Anything else is difficult, at the least... J On Thursday, 13 August 2015, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+1
And I don't think that community approval was what we agreed or was intended.
On 8/12/2015 1:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
This is a very good catch. Requiring community approval of the budget would seriously and I think needlessly delay the budget process.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:14 AM *To:* Julie Hammer *Cc:* At-Large Staff; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');>; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
Julie,
I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered subject to review and comment.
Greg Shatan
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer < <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','julie.hammer@bigpond.com');> julie.hammer@bigpond.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','julie.hammer@bigpond.com');>> wrote:
Hi Leon,
Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when having a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 (d) the following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw:
"Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come into effect."
In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the ICANN Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. I had not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used for such a purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or budgets).
I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is para 381 on page 58:
379. 381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the ability to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget or the IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or operating plan. The petition would state which Budget or plan was being subject to veto. A separate petition is required for each Budget or plan being challenged.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix.
Cheers, Julie
On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Hi all,
I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work forward.
The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we can begin crafting ourselves.
If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke)
Best regards,
León
Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
*De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan@sidley.com>
*Asunto: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix*
*Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5
*Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org>
Dear All,
Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal.
Could you please forward to the CWG?
Thanks
*SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP *555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan@sidley.com');> <http://www.sidley.com/>www.sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
<209588099_1.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing listCWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity