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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Well it still seems wrong that someone should have to pay to respond to non-fee 
objection.

And I think that GAC/ALAC filling one is one thing, but one of their members 
filling one is quite another and they should not be combined into one thing.

a.

On 8 Sep 2010, at 18:36, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>