[DT-O] <no subject>

[Gomes, Chuck]

I also did not receive Xavier’s message and want to call attention to the language that came from Sharon that I forwarded earlier today:

“ICANN Legal Proposed Edits to Annex F(1)(f)
“Notwithstanding any other principle listed above, prevents ICANN, in its responsibility to fund the operations of the IANA functions, from initiating activities that areremain subject to community consideration (or for which that community consultation has not concluded) with respect to the applicable IANA Budget, including without limitation, preventing implementation of any contentious expendituresexpenditure or undertaking any contentious actionsaction that werewas the subject of the IANA Budget that was rejected by the EC andthat triggered the need for the Caretaker IANA Budget.””

Note that the above edited language was apparently provided by ICANN legal.

Xavier & all:  Are you okay with the above language?

Chuck

From: dto-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:18 PM
To: mnuduma via dto
Subject: [DT-O] FW: <no subject>

Dear all,

This message from Xavier has not received any response. I am forwarding it in an attempt to get a response from DT-O.

Thank you,
Grace

From: Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez at icann.org<mailto:xavier.calvez at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 5:56 PM
To: "dto-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org>" <dto-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dto-bounces at icann.org>>
Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
Subject: <no subject>

Chuck and all,
Referring the item 1-F on page 2 of this document:
Though I recognize that the addition of “contentious” when describing those activities or decisions to leave out of the caretaker budget is helping with clarity, I also believe that this wording is subjective, has an “aggressive” connotation that may be unhelpful, and unnecessary, and inappropriate in the context of bylaw writing. I believe that the wording suggested is factual and appropriate to simply exclude those "activities that are the subject of the veto”.
I would therefore leave the document unchanged and not include contentious where it currently appears as changes.
Thank you.

Best,
Xavier

Xavier Calvez
ICANN
CFO
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
Office     : +1 (310) 301 5838
Mobile   : +1 (805) 312 0052
Fax                          : +1 (310) 957-2348

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dto/attachments/20160418/7c26589d/attachment-0001.html>