<<<
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 20:02:13 +0100
- Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <891287.56207.qm@web52203.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acc4sLVFSdAD9k0UQ+WEAB30BGY5RwAF4XXw
Danny,
My statement was not about what I wish, but about what I believe to be the
reality.
You asked why ICANN does not fund the GA, and I told what I believe is the
reason. You can do what you want with this information, you can use it to
change your strategy, or insult the messenger.
But what would be the best option for the GA?
Cheers,
Roberto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 15 January 2007 15:00
> To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Hugh Dierker'; 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] Funding denied
>
> Roberto,
>
> Almost from day one, the GA has been part of the ICANN
> landscape. We consider ourselves to be a part of ICANN just
> as much as any other group with a similar record of
> continuous involvement.
>
> For you to take the position that we are merely a "mailing
> list of individuals that have an interest in internet
> matters" and that we are a group "outside the ICANN
> structure" is disingenuous at best.
>
> We are a group whose representative structure was eliminated
> by ICANN during the same "reform" that saw the elimination of
> all at-large directors. We are a group that has been
> victimized by the Board, and you know it.
>
> I'm surprised that you have so quickly adopted the party
> line. I thought that you had more backbone than that.
>
> regards,
> Danny
>
>
>
>
> --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in
> 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|