[CCWG-ACCT] Notes - Recordings-Transcript links for WP1 Meeting #24 1 October

[Brenda Brewer]

Hello all,

 

The recordings and transcript for the WP1 Meeting #24 held on 1 October will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/A55YAw

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to wp1 at icann.org
<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>  

ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will
prepare 


Notes


These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

 

Solidifying list of volunteers who will analyze comments by Oct 12:

Budget, strat plan, op plan --> Jonathan Zuck, Cherine Chalaby, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Mary Uduma

Standard Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon

Fundamental Bylaws --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon

Individual Director removal --> Mike Chartier, Robin Gross 

Board removal --> Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg 

AoC --> Steve Del Bianco, Avri Doria, Carlos Raul Gutierrez

Community forum --> Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Jorge Cancio

CMSM --> Avri Doria, Robin Gross, Steve Del Bianco, Jorge Cancio, Samantha Eisner, Alan Greenberg

Note: Jonathan Zuck is in process of summarizing outcome of breakout session on community
decision-making

ACTION ITEM: Cherine Chalaby to send list of Board volunteers to wp1 at icann.org
<mailto:wp1 at icann.org>  

Budget, Strat Plan, Op Plan

Comments are in favor of notion of better community empowerment for budget. 

This powers appears to be essential as a backstop. Concerns/divergences include: 1) allocation of
votes. SOs control of budget over others; 2) Endless loop - it could lead to deadlock. Raising vote
threshold for second veto ; 3) Power is overly broad; 4) Keep IANA budget separate; 5) What impact
would this have on Board's liability/fiduciary responsibility

Feedback: 

- Endless loop idea is that vetoes could block company to function. Having company run on a fixed
budget could solve problem. Define rules of fallback budget.

- LA discussions should be taken into account. It should include Board comments as well.

--> Board comments reflected but LA input is not included. 

--> LA comments are not part of the tool

- Strong criticism from community has to have more weight than individual. Comment "Fees from gTLD
registrants fund over 95% of ICANN's revenue and this fact should be taken into consideration when
defining voting rights relating to budgets and strategic plans. A possible example: GNSO concurrence
required on such matters" is shocking. There is no comment on budget veto when Board is trying to
reduce budget significantly. This would have impact on fiduciary duty. 

--> Idea of budget needing to be cut is not something anticipated as a problem but it worthy a
discussion. We created the problem when solving the loop problem. 

- We should not be weighting comments not defining weights. 

- RySG comment stems from concern that it may have a potential impact revenue side of budgeting -
i.e. raising fees.

- We are not weighting votes. Your task should be to review all comments equally. 

- There is credibility in looking at uses of resources. They tend to relate to gTLD activities. We
need to pay attention to Chartering Organizations but more important for us to look at good ideas to
resolve issues.

- A breakdown of incomes may be helpful for information. Those who fund should be given more weight.
Quorum is important

- Any community powers should be exercised by community as a whole. It does not prejudge that
community on income side could have special say when discussing issues at stake for veto. No
discrimination between parts of community. 

Task ahead will be to expand on these ideas for consideration:

*        Line item veto - community identifies portions to veto in lieu of vetoing full budget;

*        On vote allocation, suggestion to cordon off where x has influence;

*        Clarify language on PTI 

Should WP1 address this issue for CCWG?

Strong consensus when we can - if not, we will present options. 

Cherine is speaking in personal capacity but happy to take discussion back to the Board. Cherine
will not be talking about enforceability. Board has submitted his comments and wishes to explain
requirements. 

Strategic Plan & Operating plan --> There are three requirements: 1) they should be developed with
community 2) they should be subject to community approval; 3) they should be consistent with
purpose, mission, role as set out in articles and bylaws. In terms of operating plan, it should be
consistent with 5-year strategic plan, developed by community and consistent with purpose, mission,
role as set out in articles and bylaws. 

Budget --> It has to do with annual budget and operating plan.  It has to be developed with
community. The community views must be heard, and taken seriously and timely. Board should balance
community interest and avoid discrimination. Ability to align costs with revenues and not jeopardize
stability of ICANN. There should be a formal process between Board and community to resolve issues
before it is approved. We want to avoid budget paralysis - endless loop - we want to approve budget
that is more properly allocated for current fiscal. We want to ensure strategic plan and operating
plan are on target and that organization's ability to deliver on important initiatives are not
jeopardize. We want to ensure stable operation of IANA functions. Board retain ability to approve
expenses not budgeted. Board should be allow to act in case of unforeseen matters that put ICANN's
mission at risk. Any expenses throughout fiscal year not the in strategic plan and not in articles,
mission, bylaws should be subject to community objection. Community should have real involvement in
operating plan and budget. Community would be able to object deviations from operating plan, mission
etc. This is in alignment with Board's fiduciary duty and addresses community comments. There has to
be a way to ensure that new initiatives are subject to objections. 

ACTION ITEM - Cherine to share his points in writing. and include it in doc budget subteam will
prepare 

Groups presenting on upcoming calls (Monday & Tuesday):

*        AoC (Monday)

*        Board Removal (Monday-tentative)

*        Standard Bylaws/Fundamental Bylaws (Tuesday)

*        Individual Board removal (Tuesday)

*        Final two groups for Thursday 

Use Jonathan Zuck's document as a template. 


Documents Presented


*
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/To%20Dublin%20and%20beyond.pdf?version=1&
modificationDate=1443718617000&api=v2> To Dublin and beyond.pdf  (slide 4)

*
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/Budget%20and%20Strategic%20Plan%20Veto-PC
2%5B1%5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1443712871000&api=v2> Budget and Strategic Plan
Veto-PC2[1].docx   |
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56139267/Budget%20and%20Strategic%20Plan%20Veto-PC
2%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443712889000&api=v2> Budget and Strategic Plan
Veto-PC2[1].pdf

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151002/8ae34f58/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151002/8ae34f58/smime.p7s>