ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [spam] Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Milestone report update

  • To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams'" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [spam] Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Milestone report update
  • From: "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:10:15 +0100

We missed you Eric in San Francisco.

 

To update you, the face to face meeting decided that we finalize the
Milestone report according to the comments received, including the GAC’s
ones (the issue of LDCs was namely mentioned). Nobody disagreed among the
attendees. 

 

That’s why I proposed the language modification.

 

Looking forward to hear you tomorrow on the call. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Eric
Brunner-Williams
Envoyé : jeudi 24 mars 2011 15:28
À : Tijani BEN JEMAA
Cc : 'Rafik Dammak'; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'Karla Valente'
Objet : Re: [spam] Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Milestone report update

 

 

Tijani,

 

My participation in ICANN-40 was via remote, and the available 

bandwidth and name resolution* was not as condusive to remote 

participation as it was during the Nairobi meeting, for reasons 

unrelated to the venue network provider, or the venue regional network 

infrastructure. I did not participate in the meeting of those 

physically present at ICANN-40, and so the basis for the exchange of 

views between you and co-chair Rafik is not directly known to me.

 

I write because in reading your note one phrase caught my attention. 

It is this:

 

> I am personally against specific treatment for governmental para-statal
applications as they have more channels and possibilities to get funding
from several sources compared to NGO for example.

 

I've been reading the literature on the abilities of Tribal 

Governments (in the United States) to issue bonds, and the conclusion 

I'm coming to is that there is a qualitative difference between the 

abilities of governments inferior to the federal government, from 

sewer districts to municipalities to states and trans-state regions, 

and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (a term of art in US law), and 

that this difference is quantitatively sufficient to support the 

thesis that Federally Recognized Indian Tribes generally, though 

situated interior to a highly developed national economy, which 

includes highly developed tax exempt public and non-exempt private 

means of financing the normal activities of government, lack, by the 

express intent of the surrounding national government, meaningful 

access to those means of financing the normal activities of government.

 

Sorry for the long sentence. In short form, tribal governments are 

barred from issuing tax exempt bonds, for the range of activities that 

non-tribal governments are allowed, and so have fewer means of 

financing a .tribe than any city has of financing a .city. Again, this 

is all US specific, and I'll post a paper on the subject in April.

 

I've no idea if a similar situation exists in Canada, or Mexico, or 

elsewhere in the Americas, or if similar tax constructs or more 

general rights and privileges available to polities arising from the 

colonial enterprise are not available to surviving pre-existing polities.

 

My point I suppose is that on average, surviving pre-colonial 

governments are likely to have lesser, rather than greater, access to 

capital, than post-colonial NGOs.

 

Eric

 

* The TimeWarner nameservers for central New York failed several times 

during the week of ICANN-40, on two occasions for several hours. This 

had the effect of making the web interface for remote participation 

unreachable, leaving only the skype (doesn't use DNS) communications 

channels as reliable means of communication.

 

TimeWarner nameservice and routing in central New York also failed 

during the composition of this note.

Attachment: Notes_JAS meeting in SFO.doc
Description: MS-Word document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy