<div>Very enlightening discussion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Surrounding and embedded in the topics as surveyed online and elsewhere are the following (and more) terms:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>tax</div>
<div>tithe</div>
<div>service charge</div>
<div>operating fee</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some comments are that taxes are legislated, tithes are ostensibly voluntary, service charges are variable on discretion, and operating fees can include future forecasts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But that is a brief and spontaneous gathering of terms and comments in order to post query here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are there more such key ones? Can they be discussed as a batched set of terms? Does it help?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your expertise much appreciated,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Linda M F. LDMF.</div>
<div>Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">George Sadowsky</b> <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Comments inserted below...<br><br>At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote:<br>>Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line.
<br>><br>>George Sadowsky wrote:<br>>>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy<br>>>making.<br>>Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda:<br>><br>>"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to:
<br>>a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet<br>>governance<br>>(...)<br>>g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant<br>>bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
<br>>(...)<br>>k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of<br>>the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;<br>>(...)<br>>77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
<br>>existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but<br>>would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be<br>>constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It
<br>>would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the<br>>Internet."<br><br>This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe<br>that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the
<br>purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion<br>of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been some<br>rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure.<br>
<br>One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one<br>reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much<br>pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were<br>no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be
<br>crafted. I agree with his assessment.<br><br>So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening<br>contradicts it, and for the best, I think.<br><br>The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think
<br>even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu.<br>Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations<br>generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the<br>way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a
<br>highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN<br>meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is<br>formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and
<br>frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way<br>it was in Athens.<br><br>><br>>So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find<br>>solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public
<br>>policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you<br>>call it "governance", not "government".<br><br><br><br><br>Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think of
<br>the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance<br>responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_<br>binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic<br>Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and
<br>presumably at least morally binding on adherents.<br><br>><br>>>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is<br>>>>financed through the taxes we pay....<br>>Not exactly:<br>
>"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary<br>>contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations.<br>>Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following
<br>>donors."<br>><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm">http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm</a><br><br><br>Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is financed<br>in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most of
<br>it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other<br>governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out.<br><br>><br>>>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please<br>>>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely
<br>>>inconsistent<br>>> with its mandate.<br>>That is not the question (well, of course you could question why<br>>Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new<br>>gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding funding
<br>> for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate.<br><br>ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate beyond<br>the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e.<br>"mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant
<br>funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN<br>is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly so.<br><br>><br>>Best, Ralf<br><br><br>Regards,<br><br>George<br>
<br>--<br><br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br><br>George Sadowsky <a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@attglobal.net">george.sadowsky@attglobal.net</a><br>64 Sweet Briar Road
<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a><br>Stamford, CT 06905-1514 <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.com/">http://www.georgesadowsky.com/</a><br>tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
<br>Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: sadowsky<br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">
governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:
<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br>