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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Avri's proposal seems sensible to me.

ICANN would have to absorb the cost,  but given the likely infrequency of this 
happening (my opinion) I don't think it would be a big cost.

RT


On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> hi,
> 
> Perhaps, given the importance of operating on a non-fee basis has to 
> governments, no one should ever have to pay a fee to respond to a government 
> or GAC/ALAC objection.
> 
> This would balance  'sovereignty means never having to pay' with a fairness 
> principle that says no stakeholder should be under a worse set of conditions 
> than another stakeholder.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 8 Sep 2010, at 22:14, Frank March wrote:
> 
>> Hi Milton:
>> 
>> sovereignity in a word.  I am conveying my interpretation of what the GAC 
>> would be likely to respond with based on discussion held in previous GAC 
>> meetings.  I do not seek to justify but to inform.  
>> 
>> The discussion in the SOAC meeting turned to the purposes of the fee and 
>> that is where some alternative suggestions for avoiding the requirement 
>> started to appear
>> 
>> Best wishes, Frank
>> 
>> PS happy to have a detailed discussion of where I think the GAC is likely to 
>> go in Vilnius if you like.  I take it you will be there?
>> 
>> ----
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:01 a.m.
>> To: Frank March; soac-mapo
>> Subject: RE: Note of GAC position on paying for objections
>> 
>> Frank,
>> 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.
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>> 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 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.
>> 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.
> 
>