Re: [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri:

Could we handle this concern by stating that the GAC itself or through its 
members could file only one collective objection to a string without a fee?

Best,

Jon



On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> As long as the provision was the same for ALAC as for GAC, I think this would 
> make sense for the AC itself to be able to file an objection on a non-fee 
> basis.
> 
> On the other hand, I do not agree that an individual country should be able 
> to file on a non-fee basis.  It uses the resources just as much and I can see 
> how in some cases the filing of the objection might not be frivolous because 
> it could come from a serious national belief, but it still might be 
> persecutional of those who believe otherwise.  
> 
> Also there is a fee to respond to an objection.  Should the applicant  who 
> must respond to the objection also be free of the fee.  Otherwise several 
> nations with similar beliefs (about homosexuality for example) file similar 
> but not identical objections, and the applicant could forced to pay a 
> separate fee to respond to each one.  This would then constitute a denial of 
> service attack by the nations.  To allow this on a non-fee basis would be 
> very wrong in my opinion.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Sep 2010, at 17:47, Frank March wrote:
> 
>> I undertook during the meeting to circulate some text which recognised the 
>> strongly held position of the GAC that no country should be required to pay 
>> the objector's fee.  Subsequently the discussion moved on to looking at what 
>> constituted a government for this purpose (I suggested using the GAC 
>> definition for membership).  Then there was the suggestion from Bertrand 
>> that GAC membership could be a requirement for a no-fee objection by a 
>> government.  
>> 
>> The discussion moved to the position of both the GAC and ALAC in the 
>> objections process with the suggestion that either of these can lodge an 
>> objection on behalf of a member.  Since the GAC requires consensus this 
>> would necessarily overcome any concerns about 'frivolous' objections coming 
>> from this source.  I suggest including a recommendation along this line in 
>> our draft report.
>> 
>> ----
>> Frank March
>> Senior Specialist Advisor
>> Digital Development
>> Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
>> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
>> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>> 
>> newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local 
>> government services 
>> 
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
>> Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted 
>> with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. 
>> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery 
>> to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in 
>> error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and 
>> delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
> 
>