[CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals

[Seun Ojedeji]

H James,all

Well in the current CCWG proposal the idea of budget approval by the
community was not proposed; the board approves budget(ref para 383 of CCWG
draft2) but there is opportunity to engage the community in the budget
development process which is fine. Secondly, based on recent happenings, i
don't think it was necessary for the CWG-Stewardship to have had dependency
on community veto of "ICANN budget" to the extent that it doesn't affect
PTI/IANA/Separation(when required).

Regards

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I belive that we came to the requirement, the wording associated with it,
> and the method of implementation of that and that the chartering
> organisations agreed to it in our proposal.
> If we try and go back on this now it opens up a whole can of worms that we
> in my opinion can’t go into unless its an absolute necessity.
>
> -James
>
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Robinson
> Organization: Afilias
> Reply-To: "jrobinson at afilias.info"
> Date: Friday 25 September 2015 17:11
> To: 'Seun Ojedeji'
>
> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org"
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on
> Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals
>
> Thanks Seun,
>
>
>
> Any other view on this?
>
>
>
> Notwithstanding the views, a key point for me is that we ended up where we
> did, then put it to public comment, then put it to the chartering
> organisations.
>
>
>
> Therefore, it seems to me that (assuming we wanted to) it would be
> challenging to unwind a requirement such as this one at this stage. At
> least in a timely way.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 24 September 2015 15:43
> *To:* Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Legal work for CCWG Accountability on
> Board Proposals versus CCWG Proposals
>
>
>
> Thanks Jonathan, reading through the CWG dependency I was really wondering
> whether it was appropriate for us to have required a veto on ICANN budget
> instead of that of the PTI/IANA because I think they are 2 different things.
>
> Perhaps our choice of words like approval/veto is a concern as well.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> All,
>
>
>
> You may find the attached to be useful background reading in relation to
> the CWGs consideration of its dependencies on the CCWG work.
>
>
>
> Thank-you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150925/b2028f1e/attachment.html>