Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote

> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN
> budget, circa 5 million USD, the DNSO have been asking ICANN Board
> to provide $100,000 per annum for the DNSO Secretariat.
> The DNSO function of developping policy for gTLD space is
> the main reason for which ICANN has been created under the MoU
> with the USG.

Bret Fausett wrote:

> I think this speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.

I think this speaks volumes about the legitimacy of ICANN.

Joe Sims wrote:

> The angst over this is interesting, and it shows how some have forgotten
> the basic idea here.  The reason for ICANN was to create an organization
> that could avoid the bureaucratic problems of treaty organizations.  What
> we have here is a great example of the difference between governmental
> bodies and more flexible bodies.  Up to now, Australia has been the
> volunteer funding source for the GAC Chair and Secretariat, and no GAC
> members had to worry about funding other than to travel to meeting.
Now
> that source has gone away (Australia reasonably concluding it had carried
> more than its fair share of the load), and the GAC representatives have
to
> figure out, for the first time, how to fund the Chair and Secretariat.
It
> is hardly surprising that, being governments, this takes some time.  Now,
> someone has to come up with a plan (the GAC has created a committee to do
> this), and then the GAC reps go back to their governments, and get
whatever
> approval is necessary.  This also takes some time.  At this stage in the
> ICANN reform process, unfortunately, we don't have any time; we are in
the
> middle of the process, and it will end in October.  So if there is going
to
> be any GAC activity between now and Shanghai, someone has to pay for it.
> Of course governments have the money, but it takes time to go through
their
> processes.  The ability of ICANN to make a quick decision to deal with an
> immediate issue is a great example of the advantages of a private sector
> body over a governmental body -- or in other words, the justification for
a
> body like ICANN.
>
> The difference between the DNSO request and this is that the former was
> intended to be permanent funding, while this is a short-term, one time
> issue.  The general issue of funding for ICANN units is part of the
reform
> process, and the Blueprint assumes that the ICANN constituent units will
be
> staffed through ICANN funding.  So these are apples and oranges.
>
> Joe Sims

eric@hi-tek.com wrote

> Joe this is some of the finest spin doctoring I have ever seen.

Indeed.

J

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
http://WhoSells800.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html