[WP1] rights of approval over budget and stat plan

Thu Apr 16 03:25:48 UTC 2015

hi Robin, Greg

Thanks for starting this thread.

It is really important in my mind to separate approval processes and
rejection processes.

Approval is part of bringing a piece of work to its conclusion, forms a
normal part of the process, and in respect of budgets and strategies is
normally what a Board does - and sometimes is part of what members do (e.g.
in my own InternetNZ incorporated society, the council (board) signs off
the Budget and we operate to it, but it is subject to ratification at the
AGM. Nobody has ever tested what would happen if the AGM didn't reject
it...)

Rejection is something that happens after a piece of work is done, forms an
extraordinary part of the process, and is generally what a board or
governing body does *to* a piece of work from management in my experience.

The power we have scoped up here would be part of a suite, because of other
WS2 discussions that we do need to improve the planning and budgeting
process. But I do feel it is preferable in the context of how ICANN
operates, based on what I know at this stage, to keep this as a rejection
approach - as it has been from the start, and as the WP1 has largely seemed
happy with.

Basically, I think that:

- we need to improve the budget and planning process so that there are
obligations on ICANN to seek and incorporate community views -- but that
doing so is a Workstream 2 issue (post-transition)

- to protect the Board's role as the governing body, and avoid interfering
with the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board, we are best to maintain
the community power we are talking about here as a veto/send
back/reconsideration-and-pause *after *the relevant document is approved.

- this after-the-fact process is preferable to a co-approval on such a
mundane matter, which would be over the top (we have only proposed
co-approval for allowing changes to the fundamental bylaws, so far).

- this after-the-fact process it is far preferable to taking the right to
approve these matters away from the Board and giving it to the community.
Such a move would fundamentally call into question the Board's role.

- we do not want to force the community to decisions on matters that they
shouldn't need to make decisions on - with input processes sorted out, the
prospect of veto after the fact is the accountability constraint that helps
make sure the Board does what the community wants in respect of these
documents. If we're just part of the approvals stage, I can't see why we
would not want to do this as well, as the absence of this but part of
approving doens't really solve the problem of a final decision being made
by the Board - it just takes us back to having to roll the Board if they
don't "get" it.

That's my thinking at this stage.

cheers
Jordan

On 16 April 2015 at 14:19, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an interesting thought.  The Draft FY16 Operating Plan & Budget is
> out for public comment right now.
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/op-budget-fy16-2015-03-18-en  So,
> it's not like there's no place for community input into the Budget; it just
> doesn't come with much leverage attached.  Perhaps this could be amplified
> into an *approval* right by the SO/ACs on behalf of the community.
> Approval *after *the board decides (or a veto after the board decides)
> are inherently troublesome because it takes the "last word" away from the
> board.  In a membership structure, it's natural for the members to have the
> last word.  (In a designator structure, it's kind of unnatural.)  Approval *before
> *the board decides doesn't cause the same kind of governance "heartburn."
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Jordan, Greg,
>>
>> I've been thinking about our discussions today on clarifying what type of
>> community right we are looking for with respect to the ultimate adoption of
>> budget and strat plan and I'm wondering if there is a much easier fix than
>> we thought.  We talked about creating this right as right approval for the
>> community *after* the board makes its decision, but I wonder if we are
>> thinking about the ideal process backwards.  The budget and strat plan that
>> should be presented to a board vote for ultimate approval should be one
>> that the community has *already* approved of.  Like how the GNSO policy
>> is made: what gets put before the board for approval and adoption is
>> something that the community already signed-off on before it gets to the
>> board for final approval.  It might be just terminology - misusing words
>> like "veto" or "reconsideration" or "rejection" - when what we are
>> ultimately seeking is an approval right on these issues.   Might this
>> clarification of language and what we are ultimately seeking be helpful to
>> designing it into the bylaws?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150416/e4abc28d/attachment.html>