<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Daniel Pimienta <<a href="mailto:pimienta@funredes.org">pimienta@funredes.org</a>> wrote:<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font color="#000000">...</font><br>
Maybe it is just that a global citizen,being netizen or not, can ask,
with some genuine concern, why a body which is supposed to serve public
interest in the area of Internet have to spent a little more that half a
millon US$ in one year to 2 US based lobbying (*) consulting companies
and if that money could not be used in a way more profitable to the
general and global public interest.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>That's a perfectly reasonable question relevant to ICANN's execution of its</div><div>mission... However, Ian was proposing that some form of structural tax be </div><div>imposed for "addressing social issues associated with the Internet". The latter</div><div>would be seen by many readers as a very different proposition than whether</div><div>ICANN's has committed sufficient funds to enable the participation of Internet</div><div>global citizens in ICANN's decision making processes; processes which are</div><div>focused on ICANN's existing mission of Internet identifier coordination.</div><div><br></div><div>The CS IGC should advocate for whatever position it feels appropriate; I pointed</div><div>out the distinction entirely to note that the perception of what you are seeking may </div><div>hinge on the explanation of why it is appropriate ICANN to commit funds in this </div><div>manner, and whether the issues to be addressed are those directly part of ICANN's </div><div>mission or simply Internet-related in some manner.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes of your efforts!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: my views alone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>