[governance] ICANN taxes/fees
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Feb 4 04:53:50 EST 2007
George
> Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service
> charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated
> guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless.
> ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to
> those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the
> administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security
> and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit.
Can you tell me one such monopoly which sets its own charges, makes its own
rules, and no have no regulation?
Your above statements come in response to that part of my email which says
'> > We cant
> > call what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a
monopoly
> >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges.
But you chose not to address this point. More monopolistic is a service
provider stronger is its regulation in order to ensure public interest
objectives. It is only ICANN which both provides the service and does its
own public policy. And then it funds some organizations/ activities on
public policy matters as long as their outlook seems close to ICANN's own.
I have no doubts that the context of information society and IG does need
governance innovations, and old systems may be inadequate. What I have
strong objection to is to use the new situation to completely upturn all
percepts of politics and governance, with their principles of rights,
entitlements, equity and social justice towards some models of 'privatized
governance' which serve dominant interests. What I have even greater problem
is with the use of the civil society cover to achieve these regressive
changes. Seeing 'governance as service' is a typical marketisation of
governance which is implied in your formulations of what ICANN does, and
how, and its justifiability. And this ideology has implication on governance
- at global, national and local levels - beyond IG. I had deliberately used
the 'tax' terminology to counter the 'service fees' terminology to bring out
the deeper issues involved here, which are now being discussed.
If ICANN really does not do any governance and only provides a service, then
lets put it out of the purview of discussions on Internet GOVERNANCE, and
focus on who does the governance part (and find out, first of all, WHO
really does governance and public policy in this area, that's one of the
biggest IG mysteries, often perpetuated deliberately). And if ICANN does
governance and public policy, the tax term is the appropriate one rather
than service fees.... If it does both then both terms are meaningful in its
context.
> ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet.
David Allen has already argued how ICANN's policy can have this excluding
effect (by not taking multi-lingualisation as a priority). I myself had
meant it in the sense that if I am not willing to make any payment a part of
which goes to ICANN I cannot own a piece of 'real estate' on the Internet to
use it in the manner that I may like to. And there are also more ways by
which this exclusion may operate. Coercive power need not always be
exercised directly, it is most often exercised indirectly. A tyrant king can
always announce that those who do not want to live under his tyrannical rule
have the option to go to the jungle and live life not bound by his kingdom's
authority. But to say that may not mean a thing.
> 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.
ICANN writes own its own mandate, and that's the issue I am speaking of. In
any case, as Ralf pointed out, the more specific issue here is not what the
funds are being used for, but that why cant they be used for the IGF, which
has more political legitimacy than most organizations/ activities that it is
used for at present.
> IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy
> making.
This comment is so shocking especially when coming from a special advisor to
the Chair of IGF, and also since in reply to other people's objections to it
you have also implicated Nitin, Markus and generally the MAG as having this
view, I will comment on it in a separate email.
However I do assume that you understand that a 'role in public policy
making' does not mean being the signing authority on public policy
statements. Tunis Agenda speaks at length about a public policy role for the
IGF beyond it being a 'discussion forum', I don't understand on what
authority those who are trusted with the governance of IGF can assume that
they can decide what IGF is supposed to be...
Regards
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Milton Mueller'; 'Jeanette
> Hofmann'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting
>
> I have problems with the presentation of this argument. See below.
>
> At 7:30 PM +0530 2/3/07, Parminder wrote:
> >Milton
> >
> >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation,
> >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the
> IGF?
> >> (I would suggest: none).
> >
> >The obvious fact is that a 'tax' is BEING collected by ICANN. We cant
> call
> >what ICANN collects as normal service charges, because it's a monopoly
> >provider with no regulation and sets its own charges.
>
> Monopoly providers of public utilities in many countries have service
> charges, not taxes. They may include monopoly profits, or legislated
> guaranteed rates of return, but they are service charges nonetheless.
> ICANN's charges -- to those who want domain names, not necessarily to
> those who just want access to the Internet -- are used for the
> administration of the Domain Name System and to assure its security
> and stability. That's a service from which we all benefit.
>
> > And it has the
> >coercive power of excluding anyone from the Internet,
>
> ICANN does not have the power of excluding anyone from the Internet.
>
> > if he or she does not
> >pay up. If you are on digital territory you are in some way contributing
> to
> >the ICANN, as per rules set by the ICANN itself. And it does whatever
> with
> >this collection - deciding to utilizing it for some technical governance
> >tasks, and some not so technical.
>
> Please provide examples of ICANN functions that do not contribute at
> all to the above objectives.
>
> >
> >
> >The next issue is as you say 'who speaks for the people who pay this tax'
> >(which is directly or indirectly all people who use the Internet). I
> think
> >ICANN has less representative-ness of 'these people' that IGF etc (and
> you
> >have often argued about the lack of representative-ness, transparency etc
> of
> >ICANN).
>
> Neither ICANN nor IGF would claim to be completely representative of
> the user population. Both have significant user components in their
> composition.
>
> >
> >Public policy activity needs to be financed by taxes - and not
> opportunistic
> >or pro bono participation (with the political interests often disguised).
> >These principals of policy and governance are basic... And we all do set
> >some score by IGF's role in global public policy making in the area of
> the
> >Internet.
>
> IGF is a discussion forum. It has no role ion global public policy
> making.
>
> >
> >
> >IGF is in any case already financed through the UN which itself is
> financed
> >through the taxes we pay.... And if you are not satisfied with
> >'representation, control and accountability' of it, we need to engage and
> >make it more so.
> >
> >IGF's purpose is to make ICANN and other IG spaces more accountable,
> >stakeholder-controlled, transparent etc -
>
> IGF is a discussion forum that deals with issues of Internet Governance.
>
> >so, the tax collected from
> >Internet users can and should legitimately be used for funding it.
> Starving
> >the IGF of such funds and ICANN using the tax it collects in the manner
> it
> >likes,
>
> 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.
>
> > is what constitutes a non-fulfillment of the above canons of fair
> >governance you speak of.
> >
> >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to
> >> democratic governance.
> >
> >I completely agree. That's the problem I have in paying taxes to ICANN.
> >
> >Parminder
> >________________________________________________
> >Parminder Jeet Singh
> >IT for Change, Bangalore
> >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> >www.ITforChange.net
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:10 PM
> >> To: Parminder at ITforChange.net; Jeanette Hofmann
> >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting
> >>
> >> >>> Parminder at ITforChange.net 2/1/2007 8:06:12 AM >>>
> >> >Your suggestions for raising funds are very interesting. A 'tax'
> >> >on domain names is a good idea, since the money is to be used
> >> >for IG related public policy activity.
> >>
> >> Who speaks for the people who pay this tax? What representation,
> >> control or accountability do domain name registrants have over the
> IGF?
> >> (I would suggest: none)
> >>
> >> The principle of no taxation without representation is fundamental to
> >> democratic governance.
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list