Re: [spam] Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Milestone report update
I missed the face-to-face meeting in San Francisco because I was attending the concurrently scheduled Board-GAC discussion. Perhaps there is some bylaw or term in a charter somewhere stating otherwise, (please point it out to me?), but I do take issue with not having my position considered simply because I was not physically present. Elaine On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:10 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: 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-WilliamsEnvoyé : 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, meaningfulaccess 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 thecolonial 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. <Notes_JAS meeting in SFO.doc> Elaine Pruis VP Client Services elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 509 899 3161
|