<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Jun 19, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Ian Peter <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">John, the focus is very much on the narrow “internet community” rather than the broader community of internet users. I think that should change.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If you are referring to "the participants involved in matters within ICANN's remit" (e.g. </div><div>coordination of Internet names and numbers, DNS name policy development, operation </div><div>of the IANA registry) then I fully agree with you.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> </div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">There is very little that suggests to me that the current expenditure on “facilitating global participation in the policy development process” (largely travel assistance for insiders) results in either better policy, more globally inclusive policy development processes, or more efficient processes.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>That is unfortunate, and probably a topic that folks should advocate to change.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">However, I appreciate that many people here think ICANN is wonderful.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>"ICANN is wonderful" is a rather large encompassing statement which I doubt very</div><div>many could universally embrace. I think ICANN has done an excellent job in some</div><div>areas, but there is always room for improvement. However, how well ICANN </div><div>performs its tasks is not necessarily even relevant to to the issue you raised, i.e. </div><div>whether ICANN should be devoting a percentage of its considerable income to</div><div>addressing Internet-related social issues (and possibly issues unrelated to its</div><div>mission of coordinating the Internet's systems of unique identifiers?)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri;">But even if it were efficient, and ICANN could be held up as a shining light as to how to engage stakeholders from all over the world, I would still argue that devotion of a percentage of its income to dealing with wider internet related social issues would be a worthwhile step. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are quite a few participants in the Internet ecosystem, including Internet service</div><div>providers, online content providers, parties involved in Internet registry coordination, etc.</div><div>Many of these are for-profit, some are not-for-profit. You've asserted that there should</div><div>be a tax on the Internet registry system to address Internet-related social issues; is this</div><div>because that is the appropriate place to levy such taxes, or simply because it is a matter</div><div>of convenience to tax the single centralized not-for-profit entity rather than the globally</div><div>diverse for-profit entities located in hundreds of jurisdictions? </div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: my views alone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>