<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-igo-ingo] An incomplete conversation on What is due based on global public service
- To: GNSO IGO INGO <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] An incomplete conversation on What is due based on global public service
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:37:07 -0500
Hi,
As part of one of the sidechats yesterday, the following (approximate)
conversations occurred:
- conversationally one speaker indicated that the financial consideration was
not really the point, what was the point was that these organizations, for some
definitions of the set of organizations, deserved speciall treatment because of
the global public interest they served.
- in chat, I wrote that I also supported the notion of allowing those who
served the global public interest to all get their electricity and rent for
free. With the unspoken caveat, that I did not think this was universally
accepted.
- the response siad, that yes, it was ok for them to pay for Electricity and
rent because the Utilities and Landlords were providing a service that cost
money. So it was not equivalent.
By the time I noticed this response, the conversation had moved on.
So I repsond here.
In one way, the protections that are being demanded do have a cost, not only to
the providers of the protection services but to the general public, the one
being served, by denying them competitive opportunities - something that is
enshrined n ICANN's mission.
My example, however, might have been better thought out.
Do we beleive that global public servants should recive free protection from
all of life's dangers. When they work in a dangerous environment, should they
get their body guards and helmets for free? Should they have free insurance to
protect them fires? In the best of al posslble worlds, I would probably
support this idea. but this is ICANn and we are not in the best of all
possible worlds.
As I mentioned elsewhere not only do I think the financial burden that this
puts of IGO-INGO need to be evaluated, I think that the recommendations that
are made for criterian and admission should not only be gated by history of
financial hardship but could be discounted based on financial hardship.
avri
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|