ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


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

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Government eligibility for JAS support

  • To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Government eligibility for JAS support
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:12:47 -0500

True, public funding is fungable, but so is pretty much any money. Large corporations pay their executives huge bonuses and claim poverty. Charities ask for money to help kids in need, and spend most of their money of staff and fundraising. It is all judgement calls, and I don't think that the situation is particualrly worse for public bodies.

As I said earlier, I am not a particularly strong advocate of allowing non-national governments to participate, but I don't have really good arguments to disallow them either, other than some governments have sufficient discretionary funds to not need the support.

Regarding gov't agencies that lost public funding, As far as I am concerned, it is the gov't that they belong to that we would be judging, not the agency, they would not be eligible if their parent gov't was not eligible.

Alan

At 21/11/2011 12:43 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
The problem is "fungability" of public funding... It is an age old problem in international aid programs to eradicate poverty... if a rich donor funds public education in a poor country, that government can shift its education budget to say defense...

I may have a minority view, but I do not see much economic rationale to ICANN giving assistance to public gTLD applicants on the basis of fungability...However, there may be a political rationale... we can buy multi-stakeholder peace and let a public agency make the case that they are needy... ? There are so many governments that stop funding public agencies that were once high priorities... public agencies that have ran their useful life are notariously bad at closing down... we are likely to see applications from such public bodies...

Alain

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Without going back and looking at the report or the GAC/ALAC statement, my recollection is that we (the JAS group in its report) nixed all levels of government and I believe parastatal organizations (ones that are technically private but owned/controlled by government) and the GAC/ALAC statement said all should be allowed other that national governments (and by extrapolation, national government parastatals).

So, local, regional, state, province gov'ts would be allowed.

Clearly making the claim of poverty might be harder for some of these, but that is their problem (in my view).

Note that although I do have a personal view on this, I was not advocating anything, just saying that it was a loose end that we said we would tie up, so we should.

Alan


At 21/11/2011 10:57 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Alan

So they're differentiating between local government and national government? Or did I miss something?

Regards

Michele


On 21 Nov 2011, at 15:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:

>
> The issue of government eligibility was left open in our report.
>
> The GAC had suggested that governments be eligible with the exception of national governments.
>
> I do not recall that there was any substantive objection to this from within the JAS group (perhaps I was deaf to such objections though).
>
> I suggest one of two objections:
>
> - If there was/is substantive objection to the GAC proposal, that those who object document their problem with it, and we take a consensus call to see if there is general support for or against the GAC proposal.
>
> - If there is no substantive objection, then I suggest that the JAS group issue an addendum to the report saying that we agree with the GAC proposal.
>
> There are likely other options as well, but regardless, we need to close this gap, and do it quickly.
>
> Alan
>

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
<http://www.blacknight.com/>http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
<http://blacknight.biz>http://blacknight.biz
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%209183072>+353 (0) 59 9183072
US: <tel:213-233-1612>213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>+353 (0)59 9183090
Facebook: <http://fb.me/blacknight>http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon>http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845






--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>www.schulich.yorku.ca NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <http://www.chasquinet.org>www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <http://npoc.org/>http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy