[WP1] Budget

Thu Oct 8 21:43:11 UTC 2015

Hi,

I think in the CWG is was a matter of that being a trade off for IFO
being solely ICANN owned; to try and ensure that PTI was properly funded.

avri

On 08-Oct-15 12:53, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I also strongly support this position, but I have to note that the
> CWG-Stewardship and thus the ICG proposal calls for a full ICANN
> Budget veto.
>
> See ICG Proposal Page 13, Paragraph 31.1; Page 14, Para 31.2b; Page
> 20, Para 65; Page 40 and others.
>
> There is no rationale for it, and as far as I can tell, there is
> absolutely no need for requiring it to fulfill the IANA role, but it
> is plainly there and based on the words alone, does not seem to allow
> a lot of wriggle room.
>
> Alan
>
> At 08/10/2015 09:11 AM, Cherine Chalaby wrote:
>
>> Roelof and Tijani,
>> As you know I fully support your position.  
>> Cherine
>>> On 8 Oct 2015, at 12:41, Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>> <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Roelof,
>>>  
>>> I have the same position. I think the formal a priori involvement of
>>> the community in the budget development would void the need for the
>>> budget veto.
>>>  
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *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
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> *De :* Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl]
>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 8 octobre 2015 11:18
>>> *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA; wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>
>>> *Objet :* Re: [WP1] Budget
>>>  
>>> 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
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> <~WRD000.jpg> <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>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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 <mailto:WP1 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WP1 mailing list
>> WP1 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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