[ga] do the math people ... GAC attack

[Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com>]

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 eric@hi-tek.com 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:fausett@lextext.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:34 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > 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:karl@CaveBear.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:33 PM
> > > To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > > 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 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
>

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