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

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

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 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
>
>
>
>---
>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