<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Funding denied
- To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Hugh Dierker'" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Funding denied
- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:18:36 +0100
- Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <990071.87383.qm@web52209.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acc4NCq/bSp/rAGpR9WvG2ZpQqly4gAbt7Ag
Danny,
>
> To which region should the GA apply for regional status???
> Or do you consider it wise to bust up the GA into five
> regions just to meet the rather foolish ALAC criteria that
> demands that a group be regional?
The structure in Regions is not meant to be an obstacle, but rather a step
to allow organizing locally, as well as the recognition of the fact that
different regions might have different priorities. As such, I don't believe
that it will be a problem to accept the application of an organization that,
as the GA, does not have a place of incorporation, and has members spanning
over different regions.
In this respect, my suggestion would be to apply in the region where the
relative majority of the members reside, which is likely to be North
America. Another option would be Europe, that I believe also has wide
representation (although I don't know the exact numbers) and is where the
GNSO Secretariat (who manages the list) resides.
>
> Why not simply do the right thing and properly fund the GA?
Because ICANN does not have an approprite mechanism for funding initiatives
and groups outside the ICANN structure. While ALAC is part of ICANN, as are
the Supporting Organizations, the Committees, etc., the GA does not have
this status. From ICANN's point of view, it is a mailing list of individuals
that have an interest in internet matters. However, there might be many of
these lists and/or groups worldwide, and if some funding is granted to the
GA ICANN might face the problem of having several requests for funding from
other groups, and the whole thing might rapidly get out of hand. Be advised
that this is my own opinion, and I don't know what would be the official
answer of the General Counsel or of the Board.
Maybe the best way to deal with this matter, since Joop has already
volounteered to put in place an infrastructure, would be to poll the GA
membership whether they feel that the GA should or not apply as an AtLarge
structure.
I am no longer an ALAC member, but I am sure that there are other ALAC
members that can pick up the issue and follow it up if the GA so wishes.
Cheers,
Roberto
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|