<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] IGF financing</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the attention it deserves ? <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>------<BR>
<BR>
According to this news item from yesterday, www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ <BR>
<BR>
“</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><FONT FACE="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial">Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department of Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000).”<BR>
<BR>
174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF. If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn’t need to have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies. To me the question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual taxpayers and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of game are the governments playing here.<BR>
<BR>
Two cents,<BR>
<BR>
Bill</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>