[council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Fri Jul 8 04:01:39 UTC 2016


Obviously "I can" = "ICANN".  Sorry about that. Hazards of asking a mobile device to take dictation.

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel


On Jul 7, 2016, at 22:31, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:

Hi Phil and Paul. Thanks for these thoughts, and to Paul for catching the omission of this topic.

I agree that we should raise this, but the goal of this letter is to secure the webinar. We should, however, flag the subject as an X factor that we will be watching for in the webinar, and the work of WS2.

How about we split the baby, by adding something along the lines of:

"Of particular interest to many in the GNSO community is the unresolved question of the scope of Work Stream 2, as it applies to the governing jurisdiction of I can. Please come prepared to discuss this issue at the webinar, as our ultimate approval of this proposal and budget allocation may be dependent upon a resolution to this question."

Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

On Jul 7, 2016, at 08:40, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:

+1 to Paul, and let me add this --

On Sunday afternoon in Helsinki I presented my view that ICANN’s California non-profit incorporation should be made a Fundamental Bylaw, to sync with the facts that the revised Bylaws require both the PTI and EC to be so incorporated and for that to be Fundamental Bylaws, and that the entire accountability plan has been designed to fit within and function optimally within the context of California law. Based upon some of the comments that elicited, it seems clear that other members of the community have a very different perspective and want to address the question of changing jurisdictions.

I don’t think we should be asking the BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs whether the question of moving ICANN’s jurisdiction may arise in WS 2, as it is the community’s decision and not theirs. I think we should be telling them that it is quite likely to arise in WS 2 and that the budget should include the need for expert legal advice on that question if it arises.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 9:24 AM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Hi James,

I thought we agreed to ask them in our correspondence whether or not the question of the location of ICANN’s corporate formation was an open question in WS2 so that we know how to analyze their budget (which seems very low if we have to undo WS1  and rebuild it in another jurisdiction – and evaluate all the possible jurisdictions for the “best” one).  Can we please include that in our letter and ask them for a crisp “yes” or “no”?

Best,
Paul



From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 8:11 AM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] FYI - Draft letter to BFC and CCWG-ACCT Chairs, requesting webinar on Cost Control Mechansisms

Council Colleagues -
Following from our discussions in Helsinki, please see below for a draft letter (email) that will be sent to the BFC and the CCWG-ACCT Co Chairs.
Please let me know if you have any questions or edits.
Thank you -
J.
----------------------------------
Dear Members of the Board Finance Committee, Dear CCWG-Accountability Chairs,
On behalf of the GNSO Council, I would like to request a webinar to brief the GNSO Council and the broader GNSO Community on the Proposed Cost Control Mechanisms, as well as the request for validation of the CCWG-Accountability Budget.
We appreciate the information provided by email and presented by Xavier during the GNSO meetings in Helsinki, but the GNSO Council would appreciate a clear overview of what, specifically, is being requested from the GNSO as a chartering organization, along the the expected timeframe for approval. As the next GNSO Council meeting is scheduled for 21 July, this webinar would ideally take place well before that meeting in order to provide GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies sufficient opportunity to review this information, and provide instructions to their representatives at the Council meeting.
Otherwise, because there is no Council in meeting scheduled for August, this topic will be taken up by the GNSO Council during its next meeting in September.
If needed, the GNSO Secretariat is available to assist with the planning and scheduling of the webinar.
Thank you,

James Bladel
GNSO Chair
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12558 - Release Date: 07/04/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160708/ae6a41c7/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list