[governance] ICANN taxes/fees

[Mawaki Chango]

Wow! I can see that some deep conversations have been going on! Can't
get any deeper but I wanted to share with you a piece of another
conversation that took place in the GNSO Council which might be
related to one aspect of the issue here.

The discussion was about new gTLD application costs, and possible
applications from entities from non-English speaking and less
adavanced/industrialized parts of the world and the possible
extra-cost that might be generated for them to have a reasonably
competitive application filed before ICANN. As it turned out, the
concurrent applicants think it is not up to them to subsidize their
competitors, and that makes sense, isn't it? So it appears to me that
it's the ICANN institution, including the Internet community as a
whole, to address this issue one way or the other. With the
background so summerized, I hope the following (posted on Oct 9 to
the GNSO council list) makes sense, since I couldn't reproduce the
whole conersation here both because it would be unnecessarily too
long, and because it started anyway during a facce-to-face meeting
last September in Amsterdam.    

Quote:
 > 5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may
> > result from the differences in the applicants' working languages
> as
> > well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language
> and
> > legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the
> > expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is
> and
> > must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side
> and
> > from the operation and supply side.
> 
> Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against
> them"?
> If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their
> application
> because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any
> negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you.
>  But
> if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs,

I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on
this first part.

 
> then that
> raises an additional question: who should bear the costs?  The RyC
> has
> communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants
> should
> have to subsidize application costs for other applicants.  Do you
> agree
> or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree, 

Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here.


> then are you
> suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such
> applicants
> or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover
> the
> extra costs?
>  

The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole
ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say
regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these
processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work
harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as
possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those
potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either
symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the
industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We,
as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole
community, and it may have different flavors depending on the
specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions,
their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN
business.

To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English
speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of
regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost,
rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a
language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other
things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of
the business. Their poor institutional and economic development
doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the
result is that it is again those who have less who still get less,
falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every
one if not more because of their poor organization (access,
international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) 

So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees
(in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from
markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the
relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also
they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to
translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare
their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight
chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by
just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in
the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning
right now, already) the result is the same.

End quote


Mawaki


--- Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> George
> 
> > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have
> service
> > charges, not taxes.  They may include monopoly profits, or
> legislated
> > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges
> nonetheless.
> > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not
> necessarily to
> > those who just want access to the Internet  --  are used for the
> > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its
> security
> > and stability.  That's a service from which we all benefit.
> 
> Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes
> its own
> rules, and no have no regulation? 
> 
> Your above statements come in response to that part of my email
> which says
> 
>  '> > We cant
> > > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because
> it's a
> monopoly
> > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges.
> 
> But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a
> service
> provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public
> interest
> objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and
> does its
> own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities
> on
> public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to
> ICANN's own.
> 
> 
> I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG
> does need
> governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I
> have
> strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely
> upturn all
> percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of
> rights,
> entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of
> 'privatized
> governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even
> greater problem
> is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these
> regressive
> changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation
> of
> governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN
> does, and
> how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on
> governance
> - at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had
> deliberately used
> the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to
> bring out
> the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed.   
> 
> If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a
> service, then
> lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet
> GOVERNANCE, and
> focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, 
> WHO
> really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one
> of the
> biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN
> does
> governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one
> rather
> than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are
> meaningful in its
> context.  
> 
> > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the
> Internet.
> 
> David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this
> excluding
> effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself
> had
> meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment
> a part of
> which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the
> Internet to
> use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more
> ways by
> which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be
> exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant
> king can
> always announce that those who do not want to live under his
> tyrannical rule
> have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his
> kingdom's
> authority. But to say that may not mean a thing. 
> 
> > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate.  Please
> > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely
> > inconsistent with its mandate.
> 
> ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am
> speaking of. In
> any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not
> what the
> funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the
> IGF, which
> has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities
> that it is
> used for at present. 
> 
> > IGF is a discussion forum.  It has no role ion global public
> policy
> > making.
> 
> This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special
> advisor to
> the Chair of IGF, and also since in reply to other people's
> objections to it
> you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as
> having this
> view, I will comment on it in  a separate email. 
> 
> However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public
> policy
> making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy
> statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy
> role for the
> IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on
> what
> authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF  can
> assume that
> they can decide what IGF is supposed to be...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> www.ITforChange.net 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller';
> 'Jeanette
> > Hofmann'
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting
> > 
> > I have problems with the presentation of this argument.  See
> below.
> > 
> > At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote:
> > >Milton
> > >
> > >>  Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What
> representation,
> > >>  control or accountability do domain name registrants have
> over the
> > IGF?
> > >>  (I would suggest: none).
> > >
> > >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We
> cant
> > call
> > >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a
> monopoly
> > >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges.
> > 
> > Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have
> service
> > charges, not taxes.  They may include monopoly profits, or
> legislated
> > guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges
> nonetheless.
> > ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not
> necessarily to
> > those who just want access to the Internet  --  are used for the
> > administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its
> security
> > and stability.  That's a service from which we all benefit.
> > 
> > >  And it has the
> > >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet,
> > 
> > ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the
> Internet.
> > 
> > >  if he or she does not
> > >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way
> contributing
> > to
> > >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself.  And it does
> whatever
> > with
> > >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical
> governance
> > >tasks, and some not so technical.
> > 
> > Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute
> at
> > all to the above objectives.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay
> this tax'
> > >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the
> Internet). I
> > think
> > >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF
> etc (and
> > you
> > >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness,
> transparency etc
> > of
> > >ICANN).
> > 
> > Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative
> of
> > the user population.  Both have significant user components in
> their
> > composition.
> > 
> > >
> > >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not
> > opportunistic
> > >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often
> disguised).
> > >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we
> all do set
> > >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the
> area of
> > the
> > >Internet.
> > 
> > IGF is a discussion forum.  It has no role ion global public
> policy
> > making.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself
> is
> > financed
> > >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with
> > >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to
> engage and
> > >make it more so.
> > >
> > >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more
> accountable,
> > >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc -
> > 
> > IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet
> Governance.
> > 
> > >so, the tax collected from
> > >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding
> it.
> > Starving
> > >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the
> manner
> > it
> > >likes,
> > 
> > ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate.  Please
> > provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely
> > inconsistent with its mandate.
> > 
> > >  is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of
> fair
> > >governance you speak of.
> > >
> > >>  The principle of no taxation without representation is
> fundamental to
> > >>  democratic governance.
> > >
> > >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to
> ICANN.
> > >
> > >Parminder
> > >________________________________________________
> > >Parminder Jeet Singh
> > >IT for Change, Bangalore
> > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> > >www.ITforChange.net
> > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > >>  From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > >>  Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM
> > >>  To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann
> > >>  Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >  > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting
> > >>
> > >>  >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>>
> > >>  >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A
> 'tax'
> > >>  >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be
> used
> > >>  >for IG related public policy activity.
> > >>
> > >>  Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What
> representation,
> > >>  control or accountability do domain name registrants have
> over the
> > IGF?
> > >>  (I would suggest: none)
> > >>
> > >>  The principle of no taxation without representation is
> fundamental to
> > >>  democratic governance.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  ____________________________________________________________
> > >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >>  For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> > >____________________________________________________________
> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > >For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance