Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1374
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, August 14 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1374

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:02:53 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Marilyn,

With respect, I must disagree.

The GAC may be critical...or not..but that is not the issue I believe.
The issue of funding always revolves around who needs it most...and who
can find other sources.
If anyone can get funding or re-imbursment...it is the GAC. They
represent governments. If governments anre not serious about this
participation...then...they vote with their checkbooks.  It is a very
simple way of speaking volumes.  governments have multiple souorces of
revenue and choices to make: what to spend the money on. Funding GAC
activities...is not even a drop in the bucket for the ones that have
come to the table.

The organizations we are talking about ...like DNSO...cannot raise
taxes...or sell souvenir t-shirts...to fund their activities.

Whie I am all for looking to the future, that should not prevent us from
being very attentive to what is going on now.

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out.
> We are all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN.
> I am a firm believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing.
> Governments should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource
> in this aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all
> in transition.
> 
> Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most share -
> we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that evolution means
> just that.
> 
> It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more common
> perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have agreement to support
> of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to Advisory Councils, but noted that
> I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where policy is made, not just Board.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
> > ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> > of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> 
> > Deux poids deux mesures ?
> 
> > While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
> 
> While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> 
> (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> bail-out of the GAC.)
> 
>                 --karl--
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:13:42 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Bret did say:

> Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a 
> group constituted
> of dozens of representatives of world governments, who 
> purport to speak on
> behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial 
> activities, at
> least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I 
> think this
> speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.

Not only that but I found out the other day that InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD
manager) is funding the NZ GAC rep to the next ICANN meeting.

Small story at my blog http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/2002/08/13.html

Steven Heath
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 22:22:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Wow the politics here are truly amazing.

Somebody chart;

the blogs,
the Isoc
the icann
the ietf
the cctlds
eu
AL
ALOC
ga
dnso
worldcom
att
eff
colleges
senators
govs

Wah, I am lost;-]
e

Steven Heath wrote:

> Bret did say:
>
> > Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a
> > group constituted
> > of dozens of representatives of world governments, who
> > purport to speak on
> > behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial
> > activities, at
> > least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I
> > think this
> > speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.
>
> Not only that but I found out the other day that InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD
> manager) is funding the NZ GAC rep to the next ICANN meeting.
>
> Small story at my blog http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/2002/08/13.html
>
> Steven Heath
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:33:22 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On 2002-08-13 20:33:54 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:

>Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a group  
>constituted of dozens of representatives of world governments, who 
>purport to speak on behalf of those governments, can't fund its  
>own secretarial activities, at least through in-kind donations of  
>time if not from money? I think this speaks volumes about the  
>legitimacy of the GAC.

What's even more odd is that the wording of the resolution is about 
- - read my lips - "actual costs of providing

		    chair and scretariat services

to the GAC."

I wonder what precisely that means.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:37:16 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT), Karl Auerbach
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
>
>> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
>> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> 
>> Deux poids deux mesures ?
>
>> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
>
>While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
>effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
>been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
>into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.

Also the support the DNSO Secretariat has given groups such as
icannatlarge.com has been invaluable.  It really is appreciated by
those of us who support a meaningful role for individuals in ICANN.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 22:40:52 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:13:42 +1200, Steven Heath
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Bret did say:
>
>> Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a 
>> group constituted
>> of dozens of representatives of world governments, who 
>> purport to speak on
>> behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial 
>> activities, at
>> least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I 
>> think this
>> speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.
>
>Not only that but I found out the other day that InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD
>manager) is funding the NZ GAC rep to the next ICANN meeting.

This isn't quite the case.  A suggestion has been made by one or two
people that this could be considered.  No decision has been taken yet
on who will attend the next ICANN meeting.

A complicating factor is that the NZ GAC rep is also the Chair of our
.nz oversight committee (in a personal capacity) so is arguably
eligible to attend in both roles.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:54:03 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Actually, Bret, I think it is easy to over react to this. it seems 
to me that the governments, like many others who contribute to ICANN
may need time to develop instruments in order to fund. Each of us is
probably familiar with what it would take from our government. Governments
also have funding cycles, approval processes, etc.  So, I'm taking 
a more pragmatic approach. And, I can still see it feasible to have
all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget. 

However, I would expect that reasonable minds could disagree.

:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a group constituted
of dozens of representatives of world governments, who purport to speak on
behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial activities, at
least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I think this
speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.

     -- Bret 

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out. We are
> all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN. I am a firm
> believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing. Governments
> should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource in this
> aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all in
> transition.
> 
> Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most
> share - we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that
> evolution means just that.
> 
> It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more
> common perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have
> agreement to support of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to
> Advisory Councils, but noted that I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where
> policy is made, not just Board.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> 
>> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
>> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> 
>> Deux poids deux mesures ?
> 
>> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
> 
> While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> 
> (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> bail-out of the GAC.)
> 
> --karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:57:05 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 06:51:02 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

Joe this is some of the finest spin doctoring I have ever seen.
Dang, in Vietnam they call me Doctor No because I can do it so well.
but this beats me all up.

Joe this is nothing more than implementing the Blueprint prior to approval.
You are paying a budget the supports Government interaction and
refusing to pay a budget that supports bottom up stakeholder interaction.

Words are great when arguing with the umpire of public opinion, but sometimes
that instant replay just kills ya.
Your goal is invalid you were off sides!

Eric

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:09:07 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Marilyn,

ummmmmmmmmmm I'm not sure if my mind is reasonable but....
I figure 75k split among some of the wealthier GAC memebers...is such a
small amount...
it can come out of petty cash or whatever contracting vehicle the govt
has for procuring goods/services they dont want to go through and
involved tendering process.  Especially, as Joe Sims pointed, it's a
one-time deal.  For a major government, this is such a tiny amount, the
variance (not the total cost but just the delta) in the price of coffee
for a single building over the years, is probably greater... In govt
terms we are not talking a lot of money. For me...well 25k is
significant money.  But I'm 1/30,000,000th of canada +/- a few. Thats
why govt should be funding...not you, not me, not anyone else.

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> Actually, Bret, I think it is easy to over react to this. it seems
> to me that the governments, like many others who contribute to ICANN
> may need time to develop instruments in order to fund. Each of us is
> probably familiar with what it would take from our government. Governments
> also have funding cycles, approval processes, etc.  So, I'm taking
> a more pragmatic approach. And, I can still see it feasible to have
> all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget.
> 
> However, I would expect that reasonable minds could disagree.
> 
> :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> 
> Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a group constituted
> of dozens of representatives of world governments, who purport to speak on
> behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial activities, at
> least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I think this
> speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.
> 
>      -- Bret
> 
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out. We are
> > all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN. I am a firm
> > believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing. Governments
> > should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource in this
> > aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all in
> > transition.
> >
> > Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most
> > share - we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that
> > evolution means just that.
> >
> > It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more
> > common perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have
> > agreement to support of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to
> > Advisory Councils, but noted that I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where
> > policy is made, not just Board.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> > To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> >
> >> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> >> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> >
> >> Deux poids deux mesures ?
> >
> >> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
> >
> > While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> > effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> > been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> > into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> >
> > (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> > bail-out of the GAC.)
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:34:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

I'm sure the DNSO would have been happy to be offered one-time funding.
Was this ever offered?

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
**NOTE: 7/31-8/14 law.miami.edu will have random downtime due to
"network upgrades".  Mail will bounce, and www.law.tm will 404.**

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:57:42 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Reimburse our Secretariat

Thomas,

You have been down this road.

May I ask you and Alex prepare a vote on this matter to declare our support of
our long time Secretariat.
Perhaps harsh or perhaps in the form of a request she be reimbursed for her
services.
Obviously this is not a motion and obviously we have time problems due to
vacations.
although if pressed into service I guess I could get it formal ;-}

Please consider
eric

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 08:11:02 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Marilyn,

Now you and I have both walked enough halls of corporations and governments to make
me know this is not sincere on your behalf.  We both know this type of monies for
governments when spread out among 40 members participating for years is not an
issue.  They cannot even attend until appropriations and budgets are approved. This
is clearly a snub to the DNSO and our GA.
(I remember hearing that it is not necessarily what you give one of your children,
it is what you give the other that shows your intentions against the other)

There clearly is something else going on and it may be improper.  But VC of WC
certainly would not know about improper funding issues. Be careful what you back my
friend these are days of tough audits.
I cannot imagine ATT wanting you in a battle over ICANN'S budget appropriateness.

Eric

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Actually, Bret, I think it is easy to over react to this. it seems
> to me that the governments, like many others who contribute to ICANN
> may need time to develop instruments in order to fund. Each of us is
> probably familiar with what it would take from our government. Governments
> also have funding cycles, approval processes, etc.  So, I'm taking
> a more pragmatic approach. And, I can still see it feasible to have
> all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget.
>
> However, I would expect that reasonable minds could disagree.
>
> :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:34 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
>
> Marilyn, you don't think it the slightest bit odd that a group constituted
> of dozens of representatives of world governments, who purport to speak on
> behalf of those governments, can't fund its own secretarial activities, at
> least through in-kind donations of time if not from money? I think this
> speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the GAC.
>
>      -- Bret
>
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > I must disagree, respectively, with any view that this is a bail-out. We are
> > all engaged in trying to achieve an effective next stage to ICANN. I am a firm
> > believer that the private sector should do what ICANN is doing. Governments
> > should be, and are, key advisors. The GAC is a critical resource in this
> > aspect. Support of the secretariat for the GAC makes sense.  We are all in
> > transition.
> >
> > Let's look forward to the future and the common vision which I believe most
> > share - we can be bogged down in past experiences. OR we can understand that
> > evolution means just that.
> >
> > It is hard to put one's personal experiences and to look to a broader more
> > common perspective... but that is necessary.  In the future, I believe we have
> > agreement to support of staff for SOs ... I have supported that extension to
> > Advisory Councils, but noted that I believe that AC's must advise SO's, where
> > policy is made, not just Board.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> > To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> >
> >> ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for 4 month and half
> >> of GAC Secretariat (after Bucharest to 15 November 2002):
> >
> >> Deux poids deux mesures ?
> >
> >> While the DNSO Constituencies provide 90% of the whole ICANN...
> >
> > While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> > effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> > been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> > into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> >
> > (Had I had the opportunity to do so, I would not have voted for this
> > bail-out of the GAC.)
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:20:25 -0400
From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat 

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

[email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1374
*************************