Hi

Well in one sense they are the same thing - the PTI budget will be a part of the larger ICANN budget and therefore having certainty w/r/t budget allocated by ICANN to PTI and IFO operations is crucial.

Matthew

On 25/09/2015 17:11, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

Thanks Seun,

Any other view on this?

Notwithstanding the views, a key point for me is that we ended up where we did, then put it to public comment, then put it to the chartering organisations.

Therefore, it seems to me that (assuming we wanted to) it would be challenging to unwind a requirement such as this one at this stage. At least in a timely way.

Jonathan

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 September 2015 15:43
To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals

Thanks Jonathan, reading through the CWG dependency I was really wondering whether it was appropriate for us to have required a veto on ICANN budget instead of that of the PTI/IANA because I think they are 2 different things.

Perhaps our choice of words like approval/veto is a concern as well.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

All,

You may find the attached to be useful background reading in relation to the CWGs consideration of its dependencies on the CCWG work.

Thank-you.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology 
mshears@cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com