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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

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