<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#333333>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=187425818-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>I have been privately (and gently) chided by a colleague for using
the term "tax" below and singling out ICANN as the possible source
of "public" support for the IGF (they are already subsidizing this and
that...). </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=187425818-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=187425818-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>So for folks of that persuasion let me change the recommendation to
talking about a "user fee" or "administrative charge" (for the use of the
Internet??) and let us entertain nominations for (other?) "public" bodies
towards which the obligation (rather than request for benefaction) could be
re-directed -- ISOC was suggested, PIR as another possibility
but...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=187425818-08032012></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=187425818-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>M</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=187425818-08032012> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=187425818-08032012> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> michael gurstein
[mailto:recent:gurstein@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 08, 2012
8:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'governance@lists.igcaucus.org';
'parminder'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [governance] Is this the same in Internet
Governance?<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>(to repeat an argument I made a while ago but which
wasn't commented upon at the time...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>Perhaps an element of theory might be useful here...
We talk rather blithely of a "multi-stakeholder forum"... and rather emphasize
the "multi" at the expense of the "stakeholder" element but if we shift the
emphasis, then the question is what exactly to we mean by
"stake"</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff face=Arial>There are several definitions but the most relevant
one via <A
href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stake">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stake</A> is</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=sblk>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=sblk>
<DIV class=snum>3</DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><EM class=sn>a</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG>
something that is <A class=formulaic
href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/staked">staked</A> for gain or
loss <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=break></SPAN><EM class=sn>b</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG> the prize in a
contest <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=break></SPAN><EM class=sn>c</EM> <STRONG>:</STRONG> an interest or share
in an undertaking or enterprise <SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>or according
to Wikipedia</FONT> <FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>"</FONT><A
title="Equity (finance)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28finance%29">Equity stake</A>, a
share or interest in a business or investment</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>"Stake" in this context would thus appear to
be a synonym for "interest" and so the question is what or whose "interests"
are being represented in the multi-stakeholder
forum?</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>It is clear I think, what the private sector
interests are; and the government has it's own interests as the "owner" of a
number of assets on behalf of its citizens and as the primary arbiter
(regulator?) of various contractual (commercial and dare I, say social)
obligations. Equally, the techical community has an "interest" in (on behalf
of its clients--mostly private sector) to make sure that the techical
underpinnings are facilitated and not undermined. (I have some
questions/reservations about the particular (independent?) stake/interests of
academia in this regard but I'll leave discussion to another
time..</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>And that leaves "civil society"...
representing the "stake" "interests" of everyone else in the smooth
functioning etc.etc. of the Internet.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The cost of participation by the private
sector folks is infinitesimally small compared to the value of the actual and
potential "interests" that are being discussed, and similarly for
governments, and for the technical community who in this analysis (and for
financial purposes) should probably be seen as a sub-set of the private
sector.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Which again leaves CS as the odd person
out. They represent the broadest set of "interests" but have immediate
access to the most limited set of financial resources to support their
participation. Crowd financing would appear to be the appropriate path
but for a variety of practical (and I would argue theoretical) reasons
that isn't going to work--the issues are not sufficiently focussed or
immediate, identification with the "interest" involved is too diffused,
there is an overall lack of organizing intermediary structures in
this area for CS and so on.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>If this is beginning to sound a bit like
various transition points in the evolution of various historical
representative democracies then so be it...</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>One of the first and most significant
innovations in the creation of those democracies was the determination to
provide financial support on behalf of the public to those participating in
Parliamentary forums. Prior to that to participate in Parliament required that
you either have private wealth or a significant financial backer... the move
to direct payments to Parliamentarians was precisely to allow those without
such backing to participate and was a major breakthrough in the rise of
popular responsible democracy.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Without "public" support the IGF and whatever
significance it might have will be truncated and in the end will be
discredited as a forum simply for "stakeholdering" by "stake"holders with the
"interests" of the many being (financially) excluded in favour of the
"interests" of the few.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Since ICANN now is the major imposer and
collector of "tax" on the Internet through its control of the naming process
they should be obliged to provide the resources through which a truly
multi-stakeholder forum can be conducted.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=scnt><SPAN class=ssens><SPAN class=994465815-08032012><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=994465815-08032012> </SPAN>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>parminder<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 08, 2012 6:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Is this
the same in Internet Governance?<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Fouad,<BR><BR>Thanks for raising this
very important issue. From the quoted article<BR><BR></FONT><PRE wrap=""><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</A></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>"This is plutocracy, pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a
straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping
politics to suit their interests. The first task
of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any
complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its
funders."</P></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">It is
our view, among civil society groups that I work with, that no one should be
considered civil society who doesnt reveal all funding sources, in a
completely transparent (preferably pro-active) manner, and is not ready to
answer all questions in this regard. <BR><BR>What has been obvious to most
for decades and centuries of devleopment of democratic thinking, seems to be
completely lost on a lot of the so called IG civil society. There is this
very dangerous talk of 'multi stakeholder funding' against 'public funding'
for policy bodies (what to speak of just public interest civil society
bodies). Since the civil society obviously has no funds to spare, this is
just a poorly-disguised call for corporate funding for policy bodies. And
this talk has flowered on this very list, and we have kept quite, nay mostly
</FONT><FONT face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">been </FONT><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">supportive. <BR><BR>This is nothing
other than the most powerful - plutocrats, referred in the above quote -
seeking to control the reins of policy -making and -shaping bodies through
control over their finances. And I have seen with horror how easily civil
society have fallen prey to this game, and openly supported such moves.
<BR><BR>Even in the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (WGIIGF) this
game played out, as one of the biggest contestations. Whether there should
be any global public funding at all for the IGF become a big sticking point.
And the final resolution was; no, IGF should entirely be supported by
private funds, whether of corporates, or by voluntary donations by countries
who have obvious partisan interests vis a vis global policy regimes. And
what a victory for civil society - that evil UN was able to be kept at bay.
We can celebrate! <BR><BR>So, who are we, of the IG world, to be surprised
or feel wounded to read such news items like this one - that special
interests have been bank rolling the so called civil society bodies. We have
gone much further; we have advocated and ensured that even policy bodies are
exclusively financed by private funds, so that what you cant do by your
legitimate representation in a policy developing system, you can do through
control over its funds. A brave new post-democratic world indeed. And we
have been less than silent accomplices in building it. <BR><BR>One should
have heard the long and strident arguments of our much valued partners of
the mustistakeholder brigade - you know who - against greater transparency
in IGF funding. However, these things look to IG civil society as minor
issues relative to that big demon - UN taking over the Internet. (In the end
though, and I give the credit largely to two government participants - one
from the North and another from the South - one of the very very few real
accomplishments of the report of the WG on IGF Improvements is that it calls
for full disclosure - on both sides, incomes and expenditure - regarding IGF
finances. )<BR><BR>Significantly, since an opposition to any UN funds for
the IGF was sweet-coated by the 'UN taking over the Internet' bogey, an
alternative innovative way of direct public funding of the IGF through
routing of the fees or taxes collected by the ICANN + system from the users
was proposed, but it was equally cynically shot down. So you see, the
problem is not only with UN's 'tainted' public funds - as some want to see
it - it is against any funding which is automatic and which doesnt give the
rich and the powerful discretionary levers of control over the global IG
policy system.<BR><BR>Quite unhappily, there wasnt even any civil society
support for this proposal. <BR><BR>In the circumstances, going back to the
original article about corporate money and politics, I think IG civil
society has a lot to think about its own conduct and outlook in this
matter.<BR><BR>parminder <BR></FONT><BR>On Thursday 08 March 2012 06:12 PM,
Fouad Bajwa wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CAHuaJtM6j0sKhU3vF5AVevw1Mqa0HUwbH=UAP7p0AKTZPf2Cgw@mail.gmail.com
type="cite"><PRE wrap="">We need to know who funds these thinktank lobbyists.
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>