Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
- To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:17:20 -0700
The original thread of discussion was about an IO objection triggered by a GAC
or ALAC request. I was the one on chat who suggested, instead, a fee waiver
for direct objections
by those parties.
Frank may have a different response to your question, but my thinking was that
ALAC and GAC both, in varying ways, represent the interests of individual and
collective users who may not have the knowledge or resources to file objections
It seems to me this would be useful for ALAC and GAC without being prejudicial
to the process. Given the internal processes of both ALAC and GAC it seems
unlikely to me such a waiver would be abused.
I raised the idea to get others views, so welcome comments in general.
On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> What is the rationale for the GAC’s position that it shouldn’t have to pay an
> objector’s fee?
> I hope there is something more substantive to it than the idea that “my group
> should get a free ride.”
> How would you require other groups to pay a fee and not a GAC member? I don’t
> get it.
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Frank March
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:47 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections
> 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
> 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.