I belive that we came to the requirement, the wording associated with it, and the method of implementation of that and that the chartering organisations agreed to it in our proposal. If we try and go back on this now it opens up a whole can of worms that we in my opinion can’t go into unless its an absolute necessity. -James From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" Date: Friday 25 September 2015 17:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji' Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals 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<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

H James,all Well in the current CCWG proposal the idea of budget approval by the community was not proposed; the board approves budget(ref para 383 of CCWG draft2) but there is opportunity to engage the community in the budget development process which is fine. Secondly, based on recent happenings, i don't think it was necessary for the CWG-Stewardship to have had dependency on community veto of "ICANN budget" to the extent that it doesn't affect PTI/IANA/Separation(when required). Regards On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

I belive that we came to the requirement, the wording associated with it, and the method of implementation of that and that the chartering organisations agreed to it in our proposal. If we try and go back on this now it opens up a whole can of worms that we in my opinion can’t go into unless its an absolute necessity.

-James

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson@afilias.info" Date: Friday 25 September 2015 17:11 To: 'Seun Ojedeji'

Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals

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 <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

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Hmm, I don't think saying "veto on PTI" budget and saying "veto on ICANN budget" are the same thing. However I note that the CWG in her statement to CCWG second PC acknowledges that the ability to veto ICANN and IANA Budgets separately meets her requirement, and I expect that the IANA budget is most important and within scope for CWG than ICANN budget. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. 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 <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* 24 September 2015 15:43 *To:* Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> <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 listCWG-Stewardship@icann.orghttps://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 ------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>