Re: [ga] YES LET'S Reimburse our Secretariat

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

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 eric@hi-tek.com 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 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