<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[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 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|