<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Chris, <br>
<br>
Thanks for starting a list of key and concrete scenarios to outline
how the proposed measures could work. I think that's useful and am
tagging this email for Hillary as this type of use-case would be
useful to our communications plan. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/07/2015 06:50, Chris Disspain a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E44C0734-5433-4B27-B2B2-1507D168FE00@auda.org.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color:
rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<div class=""><br>
<div class="">Let’s assume that the single member has a total
of 20 votes (5 each for ASO, ccNSO, GNSO and ALAC) and that
the threshold for the veto is 75%. That means that 15 votes
are required. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Let’s assume that ALAC asks for an allocation of
$2,000,000 to run an At Large Summit. At the moment, that is
an extraordinary item (i.e. it is not automatically budgeted
for each year or each X years) and the process of approval
involves, in essence, the Board approving it. Under the veto
provision, it would be possible for the ASO, ccNSO and GNSO
to vote against the budget because of that line item. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
I note that it would require unanimity outside of ALAC to veto the
budget in that scenario. Worth questioning whether that is a useful
safeguard or an interference into the matters of ALAC. <br>
<br>
Another scenario that was considered by this group was a proposal
from the Board to allocate a significant part of Icann funds to a
summit on Internet governance, for example. Once again, the question
is whether the veto and the associated threshold provide a useful
safeguard or undue interference. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E44C0734-5433-4B27-B2B2-1507D168FE00@auda.org.au"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px;
color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<div class="">
<div class="">Equally, the ALAC, ccNSO and ASO could vote
against a gTLD industry summit line item or a non-commercial
users meeting cost. And, entirely the reverse could happen
with SOs and ACs 'horse-trading' with each other so that
they each get their (to quote you) needs, concerns, demands,
objections met. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
Not being a native English speaker, I can't be sure of my
understanding of horse-trading. However, once again it's worth
considering whether a cross community discussion should take place
on which needs, concerns, demands, from the various SOs or ACs
should be funded or not, whether we qualify it as "horse-trading" or
"cross community coordination in the budgetary process". <br>
<br>
And once again, the Board gets to propose the budget, just like now,
and the veto process would be exceptional and requiring
supermajority. Only 33% support and it moves on. <br>
<br>
I understand the intent of the WS2 item on the budget process to be
intended to look at these coordination issues. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E44C0734-5433-4B27-B2B2-1507D168FE00@auda.org.au"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px;
color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
<div class="">
<div class="">Is this really what we want to set up?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<p class="p1"><br class="">
</p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class="">
</p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 29 Jul 2015, at 03:02 , Greg Shatan
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" class="">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't
think the budget veto was ever intended to
substitute for community participation in the
budget process, rather it was intended to
encourage it (in a sort of dark and foreboding
way). There are already a number of ways in which
the community in general, and SOs and ACs (and
their component parts) participate in the budget
process, and these have been improving over time.
I'm not going to catalogue them here, but I should
think it's readily available on the website or
from Xavier Calvez's team. These should continue
to be improved. One continuing shortcoming is
that we are all still supplicants, beseeching
ICANN finance for a little more pie. While this
is true in private (and public) entities as well,
the level of influence of the community is
probably lower than it should be. As it is now,
the community can register all of its needs,
concerns, demands, objections, etc., and in the
end there is nothing to make those anything more
than "kind requests."</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The budget
veto is a final backstop in the event of a budget
that fundamentally is at odds with where it should
be. The budget veto should not be viewed
primarily as a power, as much as an admonishment,
to add discipline the budget process. It should
constrain the Board from delivering a "veto-able"
budget. The best way to avoid that, of course, is
communication with and due consideration of the
need of the community throughout the process. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">One other
note -- there seems to be a misunderstanding of
what a "non-profit corporation" (and why it is
called "non-profit"). A "for-profit" corporation
pays out net profits to its owners (shareholders
or other types of owners). A non-profit does not
have owners or shareholders, so it does not pay
out profits to anybody. While an entity can be "
non-profit," this does not mean it is
"non-surplus." "Non-profit" does not mean that it
is not supposed to run an excess of revenues over
expenses, or have no more assets than it has
liabilities. So, this idea of "balance" is
misplaced. A non-profit, like a for-profit, needs
to balance its books in an accounting sense, but
that does not in any way mean that there is a
prohibition or even a presumption against having a
surplus of cash over expenses. There may be a
point when sitting on a pile of cash is not
consistent with the entity's goals, but that can
also be true of a for-profit corporation. It's
entirely fair to talk about the numbers, but we
should be careful not to bring in presumptions
that don't exist. [Caveat: I'm not referring to
charitable organizations, which are often referred
to as non-profits as well.]</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br
class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at
10:30 AM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <span dir="ltr"
class=""><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank"
class="">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br
class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Dear
George,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I agree with you that a
cumulated budget veto is a pretty useless
accountability tool (independently of how
difficult it would be for the sole member to
exercise it…)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Moreover, I think the community
on the one hand should take care that the
public interest objectives (policy
development and compliance functions) are
properly funded. It would be much more
effective if those separate hose budgets
(policy development and compliance
functions) would be developed in a bottom up
fashion, based on the needs of the
community, and through the communities
direct involvement. No need for a veto then
since the SOs/ACs would be DIRECTLY
responsible for their budgets.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">On the other hand, it is up to
management to guarantee the financial
BALANCE of the day to day operations (yes,
balance because ICANN purpose is non for
profit), as well as guarantee the demands of
the community for proper funding of the
public interest functions (independently of
the line overseer of the functions, which is
another black box altogether).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">This would be in my view a much
more effective system of so called “checks
and balances” than an absolute veto over
the cumulated budget, where the community
has little knowledge on the different
objectives under it was produced, and
remains in my eyes will very obscure,
independently of the overall sum in relation
to the size of the business.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word;" class="">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap:
break-word;" class=""><span class="">Carlos
Raúl Gutiérrez</span><br class="">
<span class="">_____________________</span><br
class="">
<br class="">
<span class="">email: </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org"
target="_blank" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org">crg@isoc-cr.org</a></a><br
class="">
<span class="">Skype: carlos.raulg</span><br
class="">
<span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B506%208837%207173"
value="+50688377173"
target="_blank" class="">+506 8837
7173</a> (cel)</span><br class="">
<span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B506%204000%202000"
value="+50640002000"
target="_blank" class="">+506 4000
2000</a> (home)</span><br class="">
<span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B506%202290%203678"
value="+50622903678"
target="_blank" class="">+506 2290
3678</a> (fax)</span><br class="">
<span class="">_____________________</span><br
class="">
<span class="">Apartado 1571-1000</span><br
class="">
<div class=""><span class="">San Jose,
COSTA RICA</span></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><span
class="">
<div class="">On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:30
AM, George Sadowsky <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com"
target="_blank" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
</span>
<div class=""><span class="">All,<br
class="">
<br class="">
These are my personal opinions.<br
class="">
<br class="">
I suspect that the reaction to this
post will be, "we are way past this,
we've discussed this, and now just
help us work on the implementation
details." If so, I think that's a
mistake, because what I'd like to do
is question one of the fundamental
assumptions behind what this group
is doing. <br class="">
<br class="">
When this process started, there was
general agreement that it was more
important to do this right than to
do it quickly Unfortunately, this
feeling appears to have reversed,
with the current sense that it is
more important to get it done
quickly in the name of the
transition than to spend the time
needed to do it right. This process
is going beyond accountability to a
fundamental redesign of ICANN, with
IMO inadequate concern for assuring
inclusivity of support as well as
lack of concern for unanticipated
consequences.<br class="">
<br class="">
So here's what I'd like to
contribute ...<br class="">
<br class="">
I've been uncomfortable with the
notion of budgetary control/veto
since the idea was first presented.
I think that I now know why: in my
opinion it solves the wrong problem,
and it is the wrong solution to the
right problem. Let me explain.<br
class="">
<br class="">
In general, budgetary control is
exercised by groups who want to
control an aggregate budget, whether
for reasons of limiting growth or
ensuring that aggregate expenses for
a budget do not exceed some measure
of income. I don't think that's the
case here, although I suppose that
under exceptional circumstances it
might be.<br class="">
<br class="">
The alternative is that the control
the group appears to want must be by
program or even by line item, even
though you're planning to use a very
blunt instrument -- control over
approval of the aggregate budget --
as your tool to accomplish this.
If that's the case, then what you
really want is programatic control,
not budgetary control. If the
program is accepted, then subject to
resource constraints, it's up to the
staff to deliver, and any specific
line item or similar objection,
however expressed, interferes with
the execution of the activity. <br
class="">
<br class="">
If the disagreement is with the
program, with the objectives to be
accomplished, and how the objectives
are to be accomplished, then that is
where the control should be
exercised. Any budgetary control
after that is micromanagement. The
response to that is if you don't
trust the organization to implement
a rather well defined activity, then
change the management/staff, don't
restrict their resources and let
them continue anyway.<br class="">
<br class="">
I suggest pursuing this line of
argument further. In my opinion,
our fundamental problem has two
components: (1) a persistent
inadequate level of trust between
groups within the ICANN community,
and (2) our inability/unwillingness
to create and use structures to deal
directly with this situation and
improve it. I see the mechanism as
starting with a lack of trust --
in Board, management, staff, as
well as the ACs and the SOs and
their constituent parts -- that
generates not only suspicion
regarding motives, non-transparent
actions, and actions that are not
equally favorable to all groups
involved, but also the sense that
the process is not serving "me"
(whoever I am) well and is therefore
out of control. <br class="">
<br class="">
In other words, IMO we have a
fundamental problem of trust, and we
don't have an effective way to talk
about it or to otherwise address it,
much less solve it.<br class="">
<br class="">
The budget rejection process that is
being defined by the group is IMO
based more upon defining ultimate
("nuclear" if you like)
confrontation mechanisms than upon
finding cooperative mechanisms to
identify and resolve potential
conflicts at an earlier stage. It
does not address the trust issue,
and to the extent that my hypothesis
is correct, if not addressed the
trust issue will continue to bedevil
ICANN activities, in other probably
equally destructive ways. Should
not this group be equally or more
concerned about mechanisms to
identify issues and encourage
cooperative-based and trust building
processes to solve problems as they
arise? It does not appear so to
me.<br class="">
<br class="">
In summary, the current approach,
gaining more control over budget
approval, is based upon a model of
checks and balances, and that may be
legitimate to some extent. However,
I sense that is not the way in which
it is planned to be employed. If
so, it solves the wrong problem, nad
it does not address the real
problem. We need a different
approach, one of getting to the root
of disagreements, real and
perceived, that is early and based
upon increased cooperation and
trust, and we need a way to
communicate that encourages this to
happen. This is not an easy problem
to solve, but IMO it's the real
problem that we have to solve,
rather than some well meaning but
inaccurate proxy representation of
it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Please consider these thoughts in
your discussions.<br class="">
<br class="">
George<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br class="">
</span><span class=""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank" class=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br
class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style></span>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>