[governance] Re: ICANN taxes/fees
George Sadowsky
george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Mon Feb 5 00:46:05 EST 2007
Parminder,
I will try to respond to your comments as best I can in this email,
and then I will no longer participate in this conversation.
I responded initially because I thought that your post had some
fundamental errors that should not go unchallenged. i stand by my
original responses. But you've said more here, and you deserve a
response. My comments are inserted in various places below.
Given the general direction of your remarks, I think that we will end
up just agreeing to disagree on a variety of issues. I'll let my
responses speak for themselves.
At 3:23 PM +0530 2/4/07, Parminder 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?
At the moment, soft regulation of ICANN is provided by the U.S.
Department of Commerce. I think that this is something you would
like to do away with. The issue is what will replace it, and that is
where the focus of the discussion should be.
>
>
>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.
It does fund public policy activities, including the WGIG and the
IGF. There are a sizeable number of people who think that this is
mission creep and that it should be stopped. I have some sympathy
with this view.
i wouldn't call what ICANN does "public policy." I think that it is
their policy with respect to governance of the domain name system and
the security and stability of the Internet. That is a necessary
function if the Internet is to survive and function.
>
>
>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.
Different people see priorities differently. the threats to the
Internet's stability, and in particular the DDOS attacks on root
servers and the threats posed by PHARMING might well have been
regarded as more serious than IDN developments at some point in time.
I don't know; I'm just guessing. ICANN has not had a sufficient
budget to attack all of the shortcomings of the Internet in which it
could have made a difference. I am not arguing that ICANN is
perfect, but I do argue that it is grappling with a host of problems
and doing its best to work in the interest of an effective Internet.
I think that to characterize ICANN as excluding people from the
Internet because of not a high enough priority to IDNs is equivalent
to blaming the World Health Organization for condemning people to die
of polio because they did not give it a sufficiently high priority.
AIDS sufferers might dispute that characterization. There are a lot
of things to be improved in the world, by ICANN, by WHO, and by many
other organizations. All of the world's problems cannot be fixed
overnight.
>
>
>> 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.
ICANN's mandate is specified in its bylaws. The use of funds for
IGF, as well as for other purposes, is mission creep, and that
concerns me.
>
>> 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,
I am an advisor, and I think that I give good advice. The chair and
the secretariat have the obligation to consider it and to make their
own judgment regarding its value.
> 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.
I will let Nitin and Markus speak for themselves on this since I do
not want to mischaracterize their views. My view, is that it should
be a discussion forum. As I pointed out in a separate post to Mawati
Chango, IGF in Athens worked precisely because it was a discussion
forum and not a decision making body. You may not agree with that.
Perhaps the formation of the coalitions corresponds to your idea of
the public policy making process. If the coalitions come back and
report useful information and/or conclusions, it will be recognized
as useful. We will see.
>
>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...
IGF is a dynamic process. It has started as a discussion forum, and
my sense is that it was successful. It may change over time, but
please beware of unintended consequences. If the IGF is forced to
converge to statements of consensus in the foreseeable future, I
believe that its value will be severely eroded and it will become an
arena for political dispute that will serve no useful purpose.
I think that the kinds of arguments that you are advancing do not
serve civil society well. I am one of you (see
www.internetpolicy.net) and have been for some time (see
www.georgesadowsky.com), and I have some work experience in more than
50 developing countries. I believe strongly that the Internet should
be for everyone, and you will see that much of my professional life
had been dedicated to this task.
For civil society (that _is_ the focus of the list that we are on,
right?) to be attacking ICANN is to miss, in my opinion, where civil
society can do the most good. I think that making the Internet
available, accessible, affordable and secure both physically and in
terms of guaranteeing fundamental human rights for more of the
world's people should be the top priorities, and that civil society
should directly address barriers to those conditions, especially
where they are stable and reinforced by industrial or governmental
policy. In this respect, I believe that ICANN is more of a solution
than a problem, and IDNs will come, even though my opinion is that
they are of lesser importance than local scripts for local
languages,the implementation and use of which are well advanced.
That's really all I have to say and will say on these subjects. As I
noted above, perhaps we will just agree to disagree on some of these
topics. But I think that you should reconsider how and where to
redirect your energies and your passions (quite properly held) with
regard to these matters.
Regards,
George
>
>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.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list