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

Sun Oct 11 14:42:01 UTC 2015

Hi,

On this, where would funding initiatives such as 1Net, NetMunidal and
the NMI have been dealt with?

avri

On 11-Oct-15 10:08, Asha Hemrajani wrote:
> 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 year’s 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 Cherine’s proposal.
>
> I am still committed to working with you towards a solution.
>
> Asha
>
>
>
>
> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org <mailto:wp1-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf
> of Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
> Date: Sunday, 11 October 2015 3:30 pm
> To: "wp1 at icann.org <mailto:wp1 at icann.org>" <wp1 at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 sensitive…not 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, “all that would happen is that
>         the previous year’s budget would roll over” 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, let’s not pay the additional
>         staff?  What if the meeting venues happen to be in more
>         expensive countries, how could we use the previous year’s
>         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_/*.  Cherine’s proposal states very clearly
>         that fallback to the previous year’s 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.”
>
>
> 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.org
> <mailto: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

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