[WP1] Budget

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think that for many people, myself among them, the power to remove the
Board is purely a symbolic power, hard to believe that it would ever be
engaged.  We get marked as horrible people when we argue with the board,
can you really imagine us rising up and voting them out?  I can't.

Having said that, I do believe that the cooperation between the board
and community on the budget should be before it is approved in, not
after.   Overruling should not be the issue, but cooperation.  If only
we could find a way to cooperate.

avri


On 08-Oct-15 06:18, Roelof Meijer wrote:
> Tijani,
>
> Somewhere in June, I wrote on this subject:
>
> "Like I said this morning: if the community has to have it’s veto of
> the budget legally enforced, the disconnect between the board and the
> community is so complete, that the board would have to (be forced to)
> resign. So there’s no need at all for a condition that the mechanism
> should deliver full authority on the budget."
>
>
> I am still of that opinion. If the community has the (enforceable)
> power to dismiss the board or part thereof, it has the ultimate power
> to steer any (important) process
>
> Best,
>
> Roelof
>
> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
> <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>>
> Date: dinsdag 6 oktober 2015 20:19
> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org
> <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>>
> Subject: [WP1] Budget
>
> Jordan and all,
>
>  
>
> As promised during the last call, here is my take regarding the
> community power about the budget:
>
>  
>
> I notice that we are much more focusing on the Budget veto after its
> adoption by the board than on the involvement of the community in the
> budget development.
>
>  
>
> Since few years , Xavier formed a community ad hoc group to discuss
> the budget preparation from the planning till the last public comment
> period before transmitting the budget to the board for adoption. This
> experience has been improved over the years and now, we have a very
> good consultation process that makes the budget almost agreed on by
> the community. By the way, the ad hoc group will have a workshop of
> several hours in Dublin.
>
>  
>
> I think that all of us wish that we will never meet the situation
> where an adopted budget is rejected by the community; at least I do.
> And to avoid such a situation, I proposed that we formalize the
> current consultation, and make it part of the official budget
> development process. I find it more important and more constructive to
> strengthen this a priori involvement of the community in the budget
> development. I know that it was mentioned in our second report, but
> wasn’t given the appropriate importance and wasn’t elaborated with
> sufficient details.
>
>  
>
> I propose that our final report makes this a priori involvement of the
> community the main path and the veto, that I hope we will get rid of,
> the exceptional and ultimate  way.
>
>  
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
>
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus