<div dir="ltr"><div>Parminder,</div><div> </div><div>Without subscribing to your theories about an ICANN "Internet tax," I'd like to say that your e-mail raises an interesting point: the possibility of having ICANN fund (even if in part) the IGF on a permanent basis. There are at least two reasons why this would be worth exploring, in a very constructive manner, by the community.</div>
<div> </div><div>The first is that the possibility of transforming one of the three public meetings it has every year into an IG. To accomodate the needs of the ICANN community, the IGF will have an ICANN track so pressing issues can be discussed face to face by the ICANN community. The IGF is a multi-stakeholder process, and ICANN is interested in, and will benefit from a strengthened multi-stakeholder process in its community.</div>
<div> </div><div>I know that when I was on the ICANN Board, we on a number of occassions dialoged on the issue of what to do about surplus new gTLD program revenues. This is another reason why I think it is a good idea to pursue the possibility of ICANN to fund the IGF, because I think it would be make sense to use some of these revenues, which could be substantial, to fund the IGF. Given that the revenue from the new gTLD program application fees is one-off (until we have another new gTLD program; whenever that is), we can work toward amending the registry/registrar agreements to include a clause to apply part of domain name registration fees (e.g. $0.01/name which would mean $2 million per year for 200 million names). So we can use the windfall from the new gTLD program application fees to kickstart the funding, and in the medium term make arrangements for a more sustainable funding model based on revenues from domain name registrations.</div>
<div> </div><div>I think such an ICANN/IGF match would be one made in heaven ;-)</div><div> </div><div>Katim</div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:13 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="im">
<br>
<div>On Friday 26 July 2013 10:04 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="im">
<br>
<div>On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa
(Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span style="color:rgb(15,36,62);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">According
to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians,
one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had
apparently asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security
equipment for the event. <u></u><u></u></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Time to cut the UN apron strings.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to
run the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding
that after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly
public funding for policy spaces and activities,....</blockquote>
<br>
The game has in fact begun.......Google has already offered 20k.....
now we can wait for Facebook, Microsoft and AT&T to come in
too.. Inter alia it can be very useful to wash, or rather 'persuade'
people to gloss over, their sins that we know from Snowden
disclosures...<br>
<br>
Next, the Indian parliament will fall short on budget and google
with bankroll it too (dont consider it too far fetched, the ideology
is fast catching) .... Do know the future that so many of us seem to
so enthusiastically be rooting for....<br>
<br>
And all this (public fund shortfalls) of course happens becuase in
the first place google et al do not pay their taxes.... What a good
use of the money saved in this way to bankroll policy spaces.... you
can try and steer the debates away from any possible tax avoidance
discussions, or from a discussion on the role of global Internet
companies in using personal data for various kinds of control,
political as well as economic...<br>
<br>
ICANN had more than 50 million US dollars in cash reserve, coming
from the Internet tax they collect from Internet users. This
inflow/reserve is expected to balloon with the new gtld program.. It
is this money that should be employed for funding the global IG
policy dialogue, ie is the IGF.... Rather than just using it to
build and cultivate a community of rather fanatic supporters of
ICANN...<br>
<br>
Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF
was put forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation as
well as by India, and supported by developing countries. Why did
other non gov stakeholders (including civil society) and developed
countries oppose this proposal.... Can at least the civil society
members of that group who are on this list explain.... I can see why
private sector or corporate funded technical community did not want
it... can also see the agenda of US supporting developed country
constituency.... but why did civil society oppose it... If the IGF
is really their most loved child...<br>
<br>
All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF (which they will pass off
as likely to increase US control - never mind corporate control)....
but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN
collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isnt that
the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as
well corporate controls....<br>
<br>
To avoid such obvious models of 'public' funding for the IGF seems
to me almost a certainly deliberate strategy to ensure corporatist
control over the IGF... I am happy to hear argument against this
proposition. <br>
<br>
Can we have a discussion on this here - the appropriate model for
funding the IGF... Can various actors present their arguments for
and against the model I propose....<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">and
adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and fancy)
multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is
to blame the public systems for it.... <br>
<br>
To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of
the apron strings that policy space should always have tied to
public funds and public systems. When Indonesian government said
last year that it was unable to fund the IGF, it should not have
been handed over to a private committee headed by a businessman.
... It should have been shifted to another country willing to host
it.... We are participating in an absolute privatisation of
governance and politics, and simply following the neolib agenda
that represents the interests of the most powerful...<br>
<br>
And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible
for a 'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and
employ their own failure to further their cause....<br>
<br>
And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an
opportunity to completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic
systems supported public spaces... Lets go over completely to
corporate funded policy spaces and policy making.... Why make
these moves in such shifty cautious ways. So at least we will all
know what is that we are contributing to building - what kind of
society...<br>
<br>
(By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this
kind - corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows
the pattern and the larger design of certain ideologies and
forces, and the extent to which they have been successful.)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
(PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy.
And please do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic
shifts are really disturbing.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" target="_blank" value="+60377261599">+60 3 7726 1599</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">Explore our new
Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">@Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-size:8pt">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>