ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Australia Spent AU$ 3 million on GAC, But Will Stop Now | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 12 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Australia Spent AU$ 3 million on GAC, But Will
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 21 2002, @08:00AM (#5478)
    Incest is best. Keep it in the family.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Australia Spent AU$ 3 million on GAC, But Will
    by hofjes on Thursday March 21 2002, @08:41AM (#5479)
    User #60 Info
    This is a significant disclosure.

    ICANN has been insistent upon ccTLDs abiding by the so called GAC principles. Each of the IANA reports concerning redelegations have focused heavily on the new designated manager adopting and acting in strict accordance with the GAC principles. In fact, ICANN's comments indicate that ability to implement and enforce the GAC principles is the MOST important qualification of a ccTLD sponsoring organization. However, the board has never adopted, or even addressed, the GAC principles.

    The question has always been: why does ICANN put such weight on these GAC principles? The GAC is supposed to be merely an advisory panel. Unless the board adopts, or at least addresses, the GAC's recommendations, the the recommendations are just recommendations, and should not be deal points for ICANN contracts (espectially material deal points).

    Now we know why. Australia has been funding the GAC. It has been funding ICANN. ICANN management has to abide by GAC wishes, or it loses funding.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Australia Spent AU$ 3 million on GAC, But Will
    by Anonymous on Thursday March 21 2002, @11:28AM (#5485)
    The GAC is a committee of ICANN. In other words the GAC is an integral part of the tax exempt corporation of ICANN and has no separate legal existance.

    Thus a contribution to the GAC is a contribution to ICANN.

    ICANN, being a tax exempt entity, has certain obligations to report contributions. One might wonder whether ICANN has reported this contribution?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Australia Spent AU$ 3 million on GAC, But Will
    by hofjes on Thursday March 21 2002, @11:30AM (#5486)
    User #60 Info
    Where does the money go? The GAC shows up at the 3-4 meetings each year, deliberates a few issues, and goes home.

    Even if the GAC funded its members' travel, the cost would probably not exceed $20k each meeting ($60k-$80k each year).

    I wish we could see an accounting of the $3M expenses. I would bet that the money extends beyond GAC.

    ICANN will not open its books to Karl Auerbach or anybody else because there are likely a lot of funny numbers written. The $3M GAC contribution has to be recorded somewhere.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Another View?
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Thursday March 21 2002, @12:02PM (#5488)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    Having thought about this a bit, it seems to me at least possible that none of this money may actually have gone into the GAC's coffers. "GAC support" after all, could be supporting the attendence of people to the meetings, and maybe in-kind support, e.g. paying for the room. Conceivably GAC itself never saw the money....
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Another View?
      by hofjes on Thursday March 21 2002, @01:34PM (#5490)
      User #60 Info
      Perhaps, but I cannot feel comfortable about it until I see an accounting.

      We are all just speculating.

      It's too bad we cannot investigate the red flag and find out the facts.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: Another View?
        by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 21 2002, @01:49PM (#5491)
        User #2810 Info
        Perhaps Australia has its own version of the FOIA and some interested person down under could file a request. -g
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re: Another View?
          by lumpy (lumpy@lumpy.lumpy) on Wednesday March 27 2002, @02:00AM (#5574)
          User #3247 Info
          why don't you just ask the person at NOIE (National Office for the Information Economy) in Canberra that has been responsible for it. Her contact details are:

          Donna Austin
          Co-ordinator, GAC Secretariat
          National Office for the Information Economy
          GPO Box 390
          CANBERRA ACT 2601 AUSTRALIA
          Ph. [+61]2 6271 1025
          Fax. [+61]2 6271 1780
          Email donna.austin@noie.gov.au

          or try the Minister for Communications:
          Senator the Hon Richard Alston
          Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
          Suite MG70
          Parliament House
          Canberra ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA
          Telephone: + 61 2 6277 7480
          Fax: + 61 2 6273 4154
          Email: minister@dcita.gov.au

          I doubt they'll have much to hide. BTW Australia does have comprehensive FOI legislation.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Another View?
      by Anonymous on Thursday March 21 2002, @02:13PM (#5492)
      You are right that there are probably forms of "support" that do not amount to a contribution to ICANN in the eyes of the IRS. But then again, there are probably forms of "support" that do.

      It probably requires a tax expert to determine whether, for example, a payment for a telephone bridge to support a GAC telephone meeting, is a contribution to ICANN or not.

      I wonder what ICANN's form 990 filing shows about GAC expenses and contributions?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Another View?
      by Anonymous on Friday March 22 2002, @01:12PM (#5508)
      Yes. And the GAC Secretariat (Australian Govt
      employees to take minutes, write documents,
      update the GAC web site, etc).
      The money will just be running expenses of GAC.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com