Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1375
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, August 14 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1375

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

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:34:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

[apologies if this is a duplicate posting]

Joe -- the funding in question "provide[s] reimbursement to the Australian
Government for its actual costs of providing chair and secretariat
services to the GAC" for the period June-November 2002.  I have a good
idea what secretariat services are, but I'm unsure what expenses are
rolled into the phrase "chair . . services."  It *sounds* as if ICANN is
reimbursing the government of Australia for the salary or stipend that
that government is paying Paul Twomey to serve as its "Special
Representative for the Internet and ICANN."  Is that right?  If so, it
seems odd.  If Twomey is unavailable as GAC chair because the Australian
government is no longer willing to pay him unreimbursed, I'm sure that a
GAC representative from some other country would be willing to stand for
election as Chair.

Jon

Jon Weinberg
[email-masked]

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" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 11:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

Joe -- the funding in question "provide[s] reimbursement to the Australian
Government for its actual costs of providing chair and secretariat
services to the GAC" for the period June-November 2002.  I have a good
idea what secretariat services are, but I'm unsure what expenses are
rolled into the phrase "chair . . services."  It *sounds* as if ICANN is
reimbursing the government of Australia for the salary or stipend that
that government is paying Paul Twomey to serve as its "Special
Representative for the Internet and ICANN."  Is that right?  If so, it
seems odd.  If Twomey is unavailable as GAC chair because the Australian
government is no longer willing to pay him unreimbursed, I'm sure that a
GAC representative from some other country would be willing to stand for
election as Chair.

Jon

Jon Weinberg
[email-masked]

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" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 18:23:49 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

- --=======20597932=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3C7A1FE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11:33 14/08/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>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.

That Stuart Lynn chairs the GAC and Louis Touton is the secretary :-)

Please, could we first check all this to be sure we have a good case.

Australia provided that service for a while. I understand they stopped and 
had no more budget. With some problem of room financing for the Camberra 
meeting if I remember?. Could we check first that this is a real expense by 
ICANN (and there are no compensation). Then what is of interest is to know 
who took the (non voted) decision of the expense (this decision for the 
payment of a past expense).

jfc

- --=======20597932=======--

- --
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 18:32:19 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

- --=======7212792C=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3C7A1FE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Joe,
if I am right ICANN tells the Govs, "I have no money please help".
You say "Govs have no mechanics to pay for their future activity, so until 
they figure it out we will help".
just fine.

But why is ICANN to help Australia and pay for *past expenses*. Could not 
the future GAC system pay for them? Is that Australia so broke they cannot 
wait for it, or so doubtfull about GAC capacity to organize that system 
they do not trust it?
jfc

On 14:57 14/08/02, Joe Sims said:

>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02

- --=======7212792C=======--

- --
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 13:30:07 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

ICANN is a California non-profit corp.  Does it also have IRS 501c? (i.e.
501c3 or 501c6) status?

I question how a non-profit can reimburse or otherwise pay the bills
of a foreign government without jeopardizing their non-profit status
(and/or their IRS 501c? status, if any).

Is this type of disbursement activity specifically authorized by the
current bylaws of the corporation?

Mr. Sims is "right on" about the angst over this being interesting.
The rest of the narrative, however, reminds me of Watergate.

With respect to whom has forgotten what, we only need to look to the
MoU and the White Paper and count the number of Directors who have
been elected by the At Large and, then, look to the "Blueprint for
Reform" to see how many will be elected by the At Large in the future.

Reform is not a pardon or absolution for breaking the rules - it is
but a weak excuse.

Wednesday, August 14, 2002, 7:57:05 AM, Joe Sims <[email-masked]> wrote:
JS> The angst over this is interesting, and it shows how some have forgotten
JS> the basic idea here.  The reason for ICANN was to create an organization
JS> that could avoid the bureaucratic problems of treaty organizations.  What
JS> we have here is a great example of the difference between governmental
JS> bodies and more flexible bodies.  Up to now, Australia has been the
JS> volunteer funding source for the GAC Chair and Secretariat, and no GAC
JS> members had to worry about funding other than to travel to meeting.    Now
JS> that source has gone away (Australia reasonably concluding it had carried
JS> more than its fair share of the load), and the GAC representatives have to
JS> figure out, for the first time, how to fund the Chair and Secretariat.  It
JS> is hardly surprising that, being governments, this takes some time.  Now,
JS> someone has to come up with a plan (the GAC has created a committee to do
JS> this), and then the GAC reps go back to their governments, and get whatever
JS> approval is necessary.  This also takes some time.  At this stage in the
JS> ICANN reform process, unfortunately, we don't have any time; we are in the
JS> middle of the process, and it will end in October.  So if there is going to
JS> be any GAC activity between now and Shanghai, someone has to pay for it.
JS> Of course governments have the money, but it takes time to go through their
JS> processes.  The ability of ICANN to make a quick decision to deal with an
JS> immediate issue is a great example of the advantages of a private sector
JS> body over a governmental body -- or in other words, the justification for a
JS> body like ICANN.

JS> The difference between the DNSO request and this is that the former was
JS> intended to be permanent funding, while this is a short-term, one time
JS> issue.  The general issue of funding for ICANN units is part of the reform
JS> process, and the Blueprint assumes that the ICANN constituent units will be
JS> staffed through ICANN funding.  So these are apples and oranges.

JS> Joe Sims

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 15:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] do the math people ... GAC attack

75,000/40=$1,875

i think that says it all don't you?  individuals are required to pull
their own weight in the process while government manderins get a free
lunch.

but the more interesting question here is why?  whats behind the deal?

regards
joe

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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
>

- --
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 15:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] YES LET'S Reimburse our Secretariat

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> 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 ;-}

Yes - let's do that.  I have not voted in years - but yes i would vote for
elizabeth.  mind you i think she's a nazi the way she used to censor the
ga list.  she'd be a valuable contribution to the civil service.

but regardless of my differences with her - i do recognize work when i see
it and elisabeth has worked very hard.  at first i exepected she would
abandon her post when the DNSO screwed her on the reimbursement stuff.
but she stuck it out and that in my opinion merits attention.

yes i support this very much.  and our secretariate right or wrong
desearves our support here.  no one in this room who has travelled the
icann trail to purgatory can deny that.

regards
joe baptista

>
> 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
>

- --
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 21:44:52 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:13:42 +1200, you wrote:

>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.

In many cases national GAC reps come from national registries - as national
registries often belong to the public academic/research world and are the
most obvious source of knowledge in the sector for the national government.
So in these cases it is quite hard to tell whether that person is attending
due to his connection with the government or to his connection with the
registry - and I guess that in many cases the LIC doesn't really mind or
even understand the distinction (which of course isn't necessarily a good
thing).
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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 15:51:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF -- Two weeks:  No comments

Marilyn,

Not one single comment has been made by any Transfers TF member in the last 
two weeks on the TF list.  You held a teleconference a week ago and still 
haven't posted the minutes... is all the work now happening behind closed 
doors?  I know that this is how the Business Constituency prefers to work, on 
non-archived mailing lists and without any regard for ICANN's transparency 
requirements... but do you need to bring such odious practices into the TF?
- --
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 21:59:42 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

- --=======2357846=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3C7A1FE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Jon,
At 21:36 14/08/02, Jon Lawrence wrote:
>he Australian government has outlayed (according to their own figures)
>about A$3 million (~US$1.5m) in support of the GAC.  I think you'll find
>that it is not so much that the Australian government cannot afford to
>support the GAC, but rather that, having achieved most of the objectives it
>set itself - redelegation of .au primarily - it simply does not want to
>continue to subsidise the rest of the governments that are involved in the
>GAC.

This seems a reasonable reason to step out and this was not questionned.
This was also a reasonable reason to step in. Yet there are some feelings
that it was to be able to create auDA and that maybe the auDA contract
was signed because ....

>It is hardly reasonable after all to expect one country that represents
>approximately 1% of global domains registered (sorry I couldn't do the
>population maths in my head so that stat will have to do) to pay for the
>administration of a global intergovernmental committee.  As an Australian
>tax payer, I'm inclined to agree.

That is a *vey good* reason!

>Also, from the minutes of the GAC meeting in Accra (11-12 March 2002):
>http://www.noie.gov.au/Projects/international/DNS/gac/meetings/mtg12/gac12mi
>n.htm
>
>"Following this the Chair advised that he will be resigning effective from
>the end of the Shanghai meeting and the Australian Government will cease
>providing the Secretariat function at the end of the Bucharest meeting."

OK the Bucharest meetng is just over. What about paying back. When was the 
money spent? Since the Bucharest meeting?

>I would therefore be interested to know why no other government or
>governments have stepped in to provide funding.  I don't buy for a second
>the argument that this is because governments take too long to make
>decisions.  This was announced in mid March - 5 months ago -  and may well
>have been communicated informally before that time.  That's plenty of time
>for any government that is serious about supporting ICANN and having a
>strong voice in it to find what is really a very small amount of money in
>relative terms.

True.

But my point was.

1. either is Australia so short of money it has to ask ICANN to advance 
money instead of asking the next Gov to come?

>Is it not therefore a more plausible assumption that the governments 
>involved in the GAC do not wish to support ICANN at all?

2. or is Australia aware of such that disinterest to think no Gov will come 
and then asks the money now?.

I feel your comment shows that Australia, Stuart and Joe do the same, they 
leave.
jfc

>regards
>jon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of J-F C.
>(Jefsey) Morfin
>Sent: 14 August 2002 17:32
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat
>
>
>Dear Joe,
>if I am right ICANN tells the Govs, "I have no money please help".
>You say "Govs have no mechanics to pay for their future activity, so until
>they figure it out we will help".
>just fine.
>
>But why is ICANN to help Australia and pay for *past expenses*. Could not
>the future GAC system pay for them? Is that Australia so broke they cannot
>wait for it, or so doubtfull about GAC capacity to organize that system
>they do not trust it?
>jfc
>
>
>
>On 14:57 14/08/02, Joe Sims said:
>
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02

- --=======2357846=======--

- --
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 14:16:00 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] YES LET'S Reimburse our Secretariat

Bless you our friend,

This is intellectual courage and moral integrity that is rare.
 To step aside from one's self and do what is right
in absence of self interest is a wonderful thing to see occur.
We must all take note.
Perhaps we can understand this is the antithesis of what we fight.

Sincerely and humbled,
Eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > 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 ;-}
>
> Yes - let's do that.  I have not voted in years - but yes i would vote for
> elizabeth.  mind you i think she's a nazi the way she used to censor the
> ga list.  she'd be a valuable contribution to the civil service.
>
> but regardless of my differences with her - i do recognize work when i see
> it and elisabeth has worked very hard.  at first i exepected she would
> abandon her post when the DNSO screwed her on the reimbursement stuff.
> but she stuck it out and that in my opinion merits attention.
>
> yes i support this very much.  and our secretariate right or wrong
> desearves our support here.  no one in this room who has travelled the
> icann trail to purgatory can deny that.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> >
> > 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
> >
- --
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 17:42:57 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Deletions

Marilyn,

Your last message posted to the Transfers TF includes the following:

"Deletions:  Development of standard deletions policy and how to pursue 
quickly
Staff help with drafting?
This TF, some other? how broad is scope of TF work on deletions? Limited to 
standards deletions? Other? What is time frame and feasibility. Verify with 
staff that takes consensus policy."

Your TF was never authorized to pursue "deletions".  Your topic is transfers, 
and your actual mandate was "there should be a fast track review by a small 
Task Force to come to a proposal to put to the NC at Marina del Rey."  As you 
haven't finished the work assigned to you on transfers, I think it to be 
highly irresponsible to now be thinking about taking on a new project without 
any Council authorization especially when your "fast-track" work has hardly 
been started... does the phrase "mission creep" ring a bell?

By the way, when will you ever get around to posting a timeline for this TF?  
Never mind the fact that this is required by the bylaws...  

- --
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 #1375
*************************