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

["Jon Lawrence" <jon@jonlawrence.com>]

Jefsey

I think we are in almost complete agreement - esp about the government's
motive with regard to auDA and the redelegation of .au.

Though if you think the Australian government is short of money then you
need not worry.

regards
jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of J-F C.
(Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: 14 August 2002 21:00
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat


Dear Jon,
At 21:36 14/08/02, Jon Lawrence wrote:
>he Australian government has outlayed (according to their own figures)
>about A$3 million (~US$1.5m) in support of the GAC.  I think you'll find
>that it is not so much that the Australian government cannot afford to
>support the GAC, but rather that, having achieved most of the objectives it
>set itself - redelegation of .au primarily - it simply does not want to
>continue to subsidise the rest of the governments that are involved in the
>GAC.

This seems a reasonable reason to step out and this was not questionned.
This was also a reasonable reason to step in. Yet there are some feelings
that it was to be able to create auDA and that maybe the auDA contract
was signed because ....

>It is hardly reasonable after all to expect one country that represents
>approximately 1% of global domains registered (sorry I couldn't do the
>population maths in my head so that stat will have to do) to pay for the
>administration of a global intergovernmental committee.  As an Australian
>tax payer, I'm inclined to agree.

That is a *vey good* reason!

>Also, from the minutes of the GAC meeting in Accra (11-12 March 2002):
>http://www.noie.gov.au/Projects/international/DNS/gac/meetings/mtg12/gac12m
i
>n.htm
>
>"Following this the Chair advised that he will be resigning effective from
>the end of the Shanghai meeting and the Australian Government will cease
>providing the Secretariat function at the end of the Bucharest meeting."

OK the Bucharest meetng is just over. What about paying back. When was the
money spent? Since the Bucharest meeting?

>I would therefore be interested to know why no other government or
>governments have stepped in to provide funding.  I don't buy for a second
>the argument that this is because governments take too long to make
>decisions.  This was announced in mid March - 5 months ago -  and may well
>have been communicated informally before that time.  That's plenty of time
>for any government that is serious about supporting ICANN and having a
>strong voice in it to find what is really a very small amount of money in
>relative terms.

True.

But my point was.

1. either is Australia so short of money it has to ask ICANN to advance
money instead of asking the next Gov to come?

>Is it not therefore a more plausible assumption that the governments
>involved in the GAC do not wish to support ICANN at all?

2. or is Australia aware of such that disinterest to think no Gov will come
and then asks the money now?.

I feel your comment shows that Australia, Stuart and Joe do the same, they
leave.
jfc



>regards
>jon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of J-F C.
>(Jefsey) Morfin
>Sent: 14 August 2002 17:32
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>---
>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

--
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