| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Incest is best. Keep it in the family.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
| |
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
| |
|
|
|
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
]
|
| |
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
|
