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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I also agree with Evan's comment and would add a question: if governments don't 
want to pay for an objection process that does cost, at the very least) in 
terms of resources and the panelists' fees, who is expected to pay for this? Is 
the suggestion that the "community" should pay? If so, would governments be 
willing to give every community member a tax rebate equivalent to the fee being 
waived?

Stéphane

Le 8 sept. 2010 à 20:16, Richard Tindal a écrit :

> 
> 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
>