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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If the GAC, which works on consensus, wants to make a MAPO-type objection to a 
string, I have no (unpaid) objection to them doing so without paying for it.   
I also have no (unpaid) objection to the respondent not having to pay either.  
I don't think ICANN is hurting for money so much that this can't be easily 
accomplished.  


On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:14 PM, 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.