[WP1] Budget

Thu Oct 8 18:10:01 UTC 2015

It is true that robust community consultation during the operating
plan/budget process will reduce the likelihood that an unacceptable budget
will end up before the Board.  But it does not eliminate that as a real
possibility.

It is true that if the Board has an unacceptable budget before it, the
Board should not adopt it.  But that is still a real possibility.  They may
not deem it unacceptable; they may think that their view of the Budget is
better for ICANN and the global public interest than that of the
community.  So they may pass that budget.

The community should have the power to veto that budget.  Giving the
community only the power to remove the Board under those circumstances is
overkill.  Even if it is one likely scenario after such a budget approval,
it is not the only likely scenario.  If you thought you should replace the
plumbing in your house, would you want a rule that says your only option is
to blow up your house?

Greg

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
wrote:

> James,
>
> I surely did not suggest a “simple 2 step” procedure. Your escalation path
> is the right way and part of it is already the present way.
> My point is that we do not need the “community veto power”. If a
> sufficient majority of the community is dead against the budget and has
> expressed that clearly and consistently, the board should not adopt that
> budget. If the board however does not listen/yield, but adopts the budget,
> that board (or at least those members that voted in favor of adoption)
> should not be (legally en)forced to listen to the community and then
> continue to serve as board.
> They should be sent away. Because they will have proved to be totally
> unfit to serve the community.
>
> Best,
>
> Roelof
>
> From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Date: donderdag 8 oktober 2015 12:38
> To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>, Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
> >
> Cc: "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [WP1] Budget
>
> I think everyone would agree with that. I think however that relying on
> such a powerful tool and realising the impact on the corporation that would
> come from exercising such a ‘last resort power’ it is prudent for us to
> have alternative means to settle issues that require a community power that
> can be exercised without jumping to removing board members or spilling the
> board which should be our powers of last resort.
>
> I think having a graded escalation path
>
>    1. Talking between the community and staff/board (Something which I
>    think the process of the CCWG has shown needs serious work)
>    2. Semi-formal consultation process
>    3. Formal and serious consultation/warning process
>    4. Community veto power which then goes to
>    5. Removing directors
>    6. Removing boards
>
> Is a much more risk adverse and less impactful process when it comes to
> any of the community powers rather than a 2 step ‘do this or we will remove
> you from your role’ process which I can’t see being a collaborative process
> for everyone involved. Or a pleasant process for sitting board members
> either to be honest.
> I will always be in favour and support a process with minimal impact and
> one that fosters staged responses from both sides over one that jumps to
> the top of the escalation path directly.
>
> -James
>
> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Chris Disspain
> Date: Thursday 8 October 2015 at 11:25 a.m.
> To: Roelof Meijer
> Cc: "wp1 at icann.org"
> Subject: Re: [WP1] Budget
>
> Agreed. If the community wants the Board removal power but believes it
> will never use it (which, in effect, makes it of no value) then don’t
> require it. As a current Board member and future non-board member who
> expects to still be a community member, I value it as a ‘power’ and believe
> it is worthwhile and effective.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 21:18 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> 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> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA <
> tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
> Date: dinsdag 6 oktober 2015 20:19
> To: "wp1 at icann.org" <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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151008/d7484a5e/attachment-0001.html>