[WP1] Sensible caretaker approaches where a budget veto was exercised

[Asha Hemrajani]

Hi  Jordan

I do share your objective of solution finding.  I wanted to suggest a
solution that would build on the community-staff-board collaboration done
for the FY16 budget which Tijani and I have experienced and which Cherine
described.  Also wanted to emphasize the areas where we are in agreement: we
have no issue with the IANA budget falling back to the previous year¹s
budget + we have no issue with veto (upto 2 times rejection) of the 5 year
plans.   The only area we seem to disagree on is the veto of annual op plan
and budget of the non-IANA portion of the budget.
Nothing I have described is any different from what is Cherine¹s proposal.

I am still committed to working with you towards a solution.

Asha




From:  <wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter
<jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Date:  Sunday, 11 October 2015 3:30 pm
To:  "wp1 at icann.org" <wp1 at icann.org>
Subject:  [WP1] Sensible caretaker approaches where a budget veto was
exercised

hi all, hi Asha:

On 11 October 2015 at 00:39, Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani at icann.org>
wrote:
> Hi Jordan
> 
> Just to be clear:
> 1. We are now talking about veto of the annual operating plan and annual
> budget, which is extremely time sensitiveŠnot about the veto of the 5 year
> strat or op plan.
This is not new information. This is what we have been dealing with since we
started writing this power down in April. I think we're all clear about what
the subject matter is.
> 1. With all due respect Jordan, ³all that would happen is that the previous
> year¹s budget would roll over² will not work ­ what about new community
> projects and expenses that did not exist in the previous year? What if the
> number of staff was different (higher), would we say, let¹s not pay the
> additional staff?  What if the meeting venues happen to be in more expensive
> countries, how could we use the previous year¹s budget to pay the venue
> operators?   
Do you agree that any such a mess would be the Board's responsibility? See
expansion on this point below.

If we need to spell out in greater detail what the caretaker provision would
be, let's do that. For instance, the following (or something like it) could
well be suitable, and isn't at variance with what the CCWG has already
elaborated:

"Where a budget has been vetoed and there is no budget for the start of the
financial year, ICANN must have the capacity to carry on core operations
while the disagreement is resolved.

"The Board has the authority to approve an interim Budget and Operating Plan
that must allow for expenditure no greater than 110% of the amount provided
for in the previous year's Budget. In such an Interim Budget the caretaker
approach is paramount: major new projects or the ending of major areas of
work will not be acceptable in an Interim Budget.

"The Board will endeavour to propose a revised Annual Budget and Operating
Plan as soon as it can. The interim Budget and Operating Plan must not apply
resources to the specific projects that were the cause of the concerns
leading to the budget veto, unless there is a direct and short-term risk to
the security and stability of the DNS involved."

Something like the above avoids the paralysis point, avoids the "repeat last
year's plans?!" problem, and brackets the plan and the budget which funds
the plan together.

It would be far more constructive for us to "solve the problem" than to fly
kites that can be taken out of context and used to undermine the whole work
of the CCWG. May I respectfully suggest that all of us take a "problem
solving and consensus building" approach to this?

The idea that anyone would want to create a situation where "ICANN repeats
last year's projects all over again" or "the staff won't get paid!" is
clearly not a situation that anyone wants to see emerge.
> 1. Please note, this is very different from the case of the IANA budget.
> Cherine¹s proposal states very clearly that fallback to the previous year¹s
> IANA budget would be acceptable.
> I want to quote Cherine to re-emphasize my previous points: "The best way to
> empower the community is to enshrine in the Bylaws a community input process
> and a consultation process into the  development of the Annual Operating Plan
> and Budget, as well as the power to Veto any deviation from the approved
> Operating Plan and Budget that are inconsistent with the Strategic Plan and
> the Mission.  Remember that the community will have the power to remove
> individual Directors or recall the entire Board. This is the ultimate power
> compared to just freezing a number and creating chaos for everyone; community
> included.²

As above, I do not agree that any chaos would arise. Inconvenience and
uncertainty, yes.

I would like to restate my point from my last message. Cherine has ably
described the Board's theoretical role in approving the budget in a message
earlier in this thread. It oversees the staff process and validates that the
community's input has been taken into account.

When that happens, perfect. There won't be strident community comments at
the last stage of that staff process saying concerns weren't listened to.
Because no such concerns would have been raised, no veto could emerge (a
veto can only, in the CCWG's proposal, be made on issues that have already
been raised.

If the ICANN Board was so wrong-headed as to persist with a proposal that
led to a veto, given all the early warning signals that are or will be built
into the process, then it is the Board and nobody else that would have to
take responsibility for the consequences.

I do not believe the Board would do this. But the veto is the ultimate way
to make it structurally impossible for it to attempt such a course of action
- it makes the consequences too negative, and that is the whole point.

best,
Jordan

_______________________________________________ WP1 mailing list
WP1 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151011/249ccf9a/attachment.html>