[governance] ICANN taxes/fees

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi George,

I don't think the secretariat or the advisory group are in the position 
to reinterpret the mandate of the IGF, their job is to help implementing 
the mandate. The statement of this caucus, if there will be one, should 
emphasize the need to take seriously all elements of the IGF's mandate.

jeanette

George Sadowsky 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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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