[governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting)
l.d.misek-falkoff
ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com
Sat Feb 3 12:20:14 EST 2007
Very enlightening discussion.
Surrounding and embedded in the topics as surveyed online and elsewhere are
the following (and more) terms:
tax
tithe
service charge
operating fee
Some comments are that taxes are legislated, tithes are ostensibly
voluntary, service charges are variable on discretion, and operating fees
can include future forecasts.
But that is a brief and spontaneous gathering of terms and comments in order
to post query here.
Are there more such key ones? Can they be discussed as a batched set of
terms? Does it help?
Your expertise much appreciated,
Linda M F. LDMF.
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff
On 2/3/07, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Comments inserted below...
>
> At 4:45 PM +0100 2/3/07, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> >Interesting debate. I have adapted the subject line.
> >
> >George Sadowsky wrote:
> >>IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy
> >>making.
> >Wait a second. From the Tunis Agenda:
> >
> >"72.(...) The mandate of the Forum is to:
> >a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
> >governance
> >(...)
> >g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
> >bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make
> recommendations;
> >(...)
> >k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
> of
> >the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
> >(...)
> >77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
> >existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but
> >would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be
> >constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It
> >would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the
> >Internet."
>
> This may be the wording of the Tunis agenda, but in fact, I believe
> that both Nitin desai and Markus Kummer have stressed that the
> purpose of the IGF is discussion, and that appears to be the opinion
> of members of the advisory committee also. There may have been some
> rethinking about the mandate of the IGF after Tunis; I'm not sure.
>
> One of the members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that one
> reason that Athens worked so well, and that there was so much
> pleasant mixing of people from different sectors, was that there were
> no decisions to be made, and no statements that would have to be
> crafted. I agree with his assessment.
>
> So I take your point about the Tunis agenda, but what is happening
> contradicts it, and for the best, I think.
>
> The concept of non-binding recommendations is interesting. I think
> even that would lead to a fundamental shift in the IGF milieu.
> Consider the United nations, for example, where sovereign nations
> generally do not consider UN decisions binding upon them. Yet the
> way in which UN resolutions are formulated apparently requires a
> highly politicized environment. Further, if you've ever sat in on UN
> meetings in New York (I worked there for 13 years), the discussion is
> formal, verbose, indirect and generally not conducive to a free and
> frank exchange of views. Let's keep the ambience of the IGF the way
> it was in Athens.
>
> >
> >So, the IGF can discuss public policy issues, make recommendations, find
> >solutions etc. They only are non-binding. But a lot of global public
> >policy is being coordinated in a non-binding way nowadays. That's why you
> >call it "governance", not "government".
>
>
>
>
> Hmm... Governance _sometimes_ is binding, at least the way I think of
> the term. for example, the pilot of an airplane has governance
> responsibility for the plane when it is in the air, and it _is_
> binding. The Pope has governance responsibility for the Catholic
> Church, and it is binding on cardinals, bishops, and priests, and
> presumably at least morally binding on adherents.
>
> >
> >>>IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is
> >>>financed through the taxes we pay....
> >Not exactly:
> >"The IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary
> >contributions paid into a Trust Fund administered by the United Nations.
> >Pledges and contributions have been received so far from the following
> >donors."
> >http://www.intgovforum.org/funding.htm
>
>
> Yes, that is correct, and it's only the Secretariat that is financed
> in that way. If you look at all the money spent on the IGF, most of
> it comes from disparate sources -- organizations, other
> governments, industry, etc. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> >
> >>ICANN uses funds in a manner consistent with its mandate. Please
> >>provide examples of use of ICANN funds that are completely
> >>inconsistent
> >> with its mandate.
> >That is not the question (well, of course you could question why
> >Californian lawyers have to make a fortune e.g. from applicants for new
> >gTLDs, but this is not the issue here). The question was if adding
> funding
> > for the IGF would be inconsistent with ICANN's mandate.
>
> ICANN is constantly being criticized for expanding its mandate beyond
> the narrow technical purposes that define its boundaries, i.e.
> "mission creep." Can you imagine what the diversion of significant
> funding from it to the IGF would cause those critics to do? "ICANN
> is active in the political arena!" they would comlain, and rightly so.
>
> >
> >Best, Ralf
>
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
> --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
> 64 Sweet Briar Road george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> Stamford, CT 06905-1514 http://www.georgesadowsky.com/
> tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM mobile: +1.202.415.1933
> Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 SKYPE: sadowsky
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070203/93864ebf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070203/93864ebf/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list