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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I don't think it does yet.

I think it reads like that may be the case, but the applicant has to rely on 
the DRSP to decide on consolidation and must gear up for a non-consolidated set 
of appeals - with no delay in the process if a consolidation is rejected.  If 
fact if I remember correctly there is not even a way for the applicant to 
request consolidation - it relies of the largess of the DRSP - and there is no 
delay in the process if the consolidation is not given.

Despite the fact that some may argue that money would be no object if Nations 
had to pay for objections, the fact that they would be able to do so for free 
worsens, in my opinion, the deleterious effect of the current DRSP process with 
regard to possible consolidation.

a.


On 8 Sep 2010, at 21:16, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> Hi Evan
> 
> Agree with your comments.
> 
> To your very last point.  The DAG4 does have a 'Consolidation of Objections' 
> provision (3.2.2) in which DRSPs are encouraged to consolidate like 
> objections.   I think staff included this in response to concerns raised by 
> ALAC and others,  as well as a general efficiency measure.    
> 
> In general, I think the provision protects applicants from objection DoS.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 September 2010 11:25, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 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.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> If religious and cultural group is required to pay for the ability to 
>> object, it seems downright obscene that governments should not. However, if 
>> objections are so clear and broadly-based that they can attract general 
>> support of one of the ACs, then I could support the cost being waived.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> This particular ability -- to spend an applicant into oblivion using MAPO 
>> objections -- has always been a concern of At-Large and a major flaw in the 
>> current process,
>> 
>> - Evan
>