<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Steve,<br>
      <br>
      <span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">I was not advising how to
        re-phrase, but asking "how can an accountability issue arise
        from something that (a) falls within "any lawful purpose" and
        (b) has been institutionalized by the Corporation as a
        consequence of the Board's 2010 resolution?</span>"<br>
      <br>
      Perhaps you could enlighten me what "community" believes that the
      Joint Applicant Support Working Group, to which members of the
      several GNSO Constituencies (or Stakeholder Groups) and members of
      at least three ACs, as well as some Corporation Board members
      participated, and any consequent effort arising from the JAS WG's
      work product, is outside the Corporation's scope? <br>
      <br>
      I'm willing to assume that the <span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">members
        of the Business Constituency</span> hold this belief, having
      contributed to the drafting of the JAS draft and final reports and
      recommendations, and having carefully read then the<span
        id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"> public </span>comments, I simply
      have no idea how one Constituency and a few outlier comments
      becomes "the community".<br>
      <br>
      Turning to your second example, are the <span
        id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">members of the Business Constituency</span>
      advocating limiting the powers of the Corporation Board to only
      those actions, and their associated costs, which have been
      previously reviewed as part of the annual budget preparation
      process, or some other forward looking business process?<br>
      <br>
      Again, <span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">thanks in advance for your
        clarification.<br>
        <br>
        Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
        Eugene, Oregon<br>
      </span><br>
      On 1/10/15 7:34 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:FDF917C7-70BC-4A98-A7EC-886DA3B88F7D@netchoice.org"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div>
        <div>Thanks, Eric.   Glad to have your advice about how to
          re-phrase that stress test.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>To clarify, that one was designed to ask whether/how the
          community can restrain ICANN from funding causes that the
          community believes are outside ICANN’s scope.  So we're not
          concerned here about whether the expense was ‘lawful’.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>The 2010 board resolution you mention was specifically
          about the new gTLD program.  But this stress test covers
          any/all ICANN expenditures, such as ICANN management’s
          decision last year to fund NETmundial (approx $1 million) .
           The NETmundial event wasn’t anticipated in the ICANN budget
          reviewed by the community.  Nor was the funding decision put
          to the community for comment.  So the corporation made a
          <u>legal</u> expenditure, but the community had no way to
          challenge or review before the money was spent.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Hope that clarification helps.  </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Steve</div>
        <div>
          <div id="">
            <div><br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
        <div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt;
          text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
          BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
          0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
          BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
          <span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Eric
          Brunner-Williams &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>&gt;<br>
          <span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Saturday, January
          10, 2015 at 9:48 PM<br>
          <span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Steve DelBianco
          &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>&gt;,
          Mathieu Weill &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>&gt;,
          Thomas Rickert &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de">rickert@anwaelte.de</a>&gt;,

          "\"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>
          &gt;&gt; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía\"" &lt;<a
            moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>&gt;<br>
          <span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"<a
            moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a>"
          &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
          <span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Business
          Constituency Stress Test #4<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
            <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Steve,<br>
              <br>
              Members of the Business Constituency are aware that
              standard incorporation language (in California, Delaware,
              New York, ...) contains phrasing of the form "any lawful
              purpose".<br>
              <br>
              Members of the Business Constituency are also aware that
              the Corporation Board " at its March 2010 meeting in
              Nairobi, Kenya, passed resolutions recognizing the
              importance of an inclusive New
              <abbr class="" title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr>
              Program, and requesting stakeholders to form a Working
              Group to develop sustainable support needy applicants for
              new gTLDs."<br>
              <br>
              Yet the language of the 4th Business Constituency "Stress
              Tests" [1] posits the Corporation's use of "registration
              fees to fund grants to developing nations or other worthy
              causes" and further declares this hypothetical use by the
              Corporation of its funds as an "expands[ion of] scope
              beyond its limited technical mission".<br>
              <br>
              In your revised language this restriction is expanded from
              the Corporation's recurring revenues to include its
              recurring revenues and its reserves.<br>
              <br>
              Without commenting on the rational contained in both the
              original and your revised language, I must ask, how can an
              accountability issue arise from something that (a) falls
              within "any lawful purpose" and (b) has been
              institutionalized by the Corporation as a consequence of
              the Board's 2010 resolution?<br>
              <br>
              Thanks in advance for your clarification.<br>
              <br>
              Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
              Eugene, Oregon<br>
              <br>
              [1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://bizconst.org/stresstests">http://bizconst.org/stresstests</a><br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </span>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>