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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Oct 11 14:46:55 UTC 2015 

Responding to my own email:

My question stands,  but it occurs to me this might be one of the WS2
ongoing discussions,  as there was nothing having to do with IANA in my
question.  Assuming there is a WS2, possibly losing  WS2 is a
complicating factor.

avri


On 11-Oct-15 10:42, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the WP1 mailing list