[governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting)

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi George,

> 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.

I hope you do realize how preoccupying it is that a few individuals,
no matter their rank, endeavor to supersede a world summit outcome
with their own opinion of what should be done or what is feasable.
For if what you're saying is true, as I'm inclined to beleive
(knowing you're not exactly the kind of man to say those things
lightly,) then it is not even a reinterpretation we are dealing with
here, but a simple replacement of a summit outcome by a
backdoor-crafted "decision" by a few individuals (to my knowledge no
meeting, no matter how restrictive, has been called to that specific
effect.) And shall I remind you that the MAG is not even the direct
result of a summit decision, as for the WGIG. And I'd find all this
amazing, to say the least.

Last, IMHO, it is still possible to have a role in policy-making
without taking binding decisions. A respected discussion forum can
highly and significantly contribute to setting the agenda for final
and binding decisions. 

Best,

Mawaki

--- 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
> 

____________________________________________________________
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