[governance] ICANN taxes/fees

[Mawaki Chango]

Now, about Parminder's observations on IG mysteries and "digital
enforcement," I just happen to be reading the following from Jack
Goldsmith and Tim Wu, "Who Controls the Internet?", 2006, MIT Press.

"Not only does the domain name system affect valuable
Internet-related property rights, it also has the potential to serve
as a powerful tool of Internet enforcementad to shape the nature of
the Internet itself. As country clubs and medical associations know
well, control over membership is a powerful tool for making people
follow rules. Already today, a basic form of such enforcement is used
to protect registered trademarks on the Internet. If you somehow
managed to register harrypotter.com, Warner Brothers or J.K. Rowling
[author of the book] could complain to the Internet naming authority,
and you'd quickly lose the name. No court, no trial; simply a direct
divestiture of the domain name. It's a prime example of what David
Johnson calls "electronic," as opposed to physical, force.
The power over domain names and numbers could also be used as broader
enforcement tool against other types of unwanted conduct. As we'll
see in chapter 5, the U.S. government demands divestiture of domain
names and IP addresses for offenses like selling drug paraphernalia
or copyright infringement. One can imagine a future where divestiture
of IP addresses is a common form of enforcement. As punishment,
individuals, institutions, or even whole countries could lose domain
names, IP addresses, or even Internet membership.  
This is why root authority matters. But how exactly does one "get" or
"hold" this authority? No one understands the answer to this question
completely. Stated most simply, root authority is the power to issue
orders respecting domain names and numbers and have those orders
obeyed. There are many ways such power might arise: from reputation,
from actual administration of the computers in question, or from
legal authority. In truth, the system long operated without a clear
idea of exactly who held the ultimate power over the root, or why."

We probably have a clearer idea now since WSIS, .xxx version 1, etc.
Probably even before, from late 1990s, with Jon Postel's
misadventures with the "root," the "MoUvement," and the early ISOC
attempt to launch an International Council of Registrars as am
Internet private-global governance body.

Finally, I guess it's no mystery that one of our fellow member,
Milton Muller, and his Internet Governance Project have written at
length about how the DNS (as a technical system) can be and is used
to leverage public policy issues.

Regards,

Mawaki 


--- Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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
> 

____________________________________________________________
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