[governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting)
Bertrand de La Chapelle
bdelachapelle at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 06:01:54 EST 2007
Hi everybody,
Just a few personal comments on this interesting and multi-dimensional
thread.
1) The success of the Athens meeting was indeed due to the informal nature
of the discussison and avoiding the need to draft a communiqué or
resolution. Annual meetings should not turn into drafting exercises.
2) The IGF mandate is broad ranging as per the Tunis para 72 and there is no
reason to believe it has been or should be changed. But the way it will
fulfill it will be the product of evolution, continuous interaction with
other organizations and the future decisions of the community of
participants. The IGF is a bootstrapped process in the making. The way it
was launched by Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer was rightfully cautious but
does not limit in any way what it can achieve in the future.
3) The IGF is not limited to mere annual meetings. The emergence of Dynamic
Coalitions points towards a thematic structuring of the IGF intersessional
activities, whereby stakeholders with similar issues of concern or interest
get together to address them better and feed various processes, including
the IGF annual meetings. Dynamic Coalitions will likely organize specific
meetings on their own issues and, under certain conditions, could be granted
an IGF "label".
4) By bringing actors together, those Dynamic Coalitions can play a key role
in, inter alia, "facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with
cross-cutting international public policies", "discussing issues that do not
fall within the scope of any existing body" (para 72b), "interfacing with
appropriate intergovernmental and international organizations" (72c) or
"identifying emerging issues" (72g), thereby helping the IGF fulfill its
mandate. Clarifying working methods for the Dynamic Coalitions will be
important but a good balance should be kept between minimum compatibility
rules and freedom to experiment various formats.
5) Depending upon the issue, and as the understanding among stakeholders
progress, those Dynamic Coalitions are likely to function in different
formats, including :
- as mere contact/interest groups, for instance to promote concertation on
emerging issues and frame the debate around commonly agreed facts and
objectives;
- as coordination groups, when several processes are already addressing the
same issue separately (as seems to be alrethe case for spam),
- as working groups, if the need to prepare common guidelines and distribute
responsibilities among different actors becomes apparent.
6) The IGF mandate explicitly mentions the possibility of recommendations
(cf para 72g for emerging issues). Iterative elaboration processes under the
umbrella of the IGF (but not during annual events) could be established in
the future to build consensus on such recommendations or even more
formalized agreements that could be presented to IGF participants. The IGF
is a discussion and debate space, a framework rather than an organization.
Its working methods are still to be invented.
7) The non-binding nature of the IGF does not mean that documents elaborated
in this context cannot be ultimately binding; it only means that the IGF
itself will not have the capacity to make them binding : they will have to
be endorsed by individual actors (like non-binding standards) or be
adopted/validated formally through other processes, for instance by national
governments ro The IGF is not a "decision-making" mechanism but a
"decision-shaping" one.
8) Human and financial resources are an important issue. Without proper
funding, the IGF will not be able to fulfill its broad-ranging mandate.
Without taking position at that stage on the proposals made on that thread,
some recurrent financing, linked to the development of the Internet itself,
with approrpriate accountability mechanisms, is certainly an option to
consider. In addition, decentralized financing of Dynamic Coalitions by
actors interested in the issue could provide flexibility, provided adequate
transparency is guaranteed.
On 2/5/07, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, Mawaki,
>
> You've provided a rather civilized response (and thanks for that), so
> I'll try to respond as best I can.
>
> First, I should have noted that it is only my impression that both
> Nitin and Markus have stressed the discussion role of the IGF and not
> any decision making role. I should leave it to them to say directly
> what the role of the IGF is, since they have the ultimate
> responsibility and I am only a special adviser. So I would not
> assume that they are trying to replace one set of guidelines with
> another. Of course, they report to the UN Secretary-General, and we
> do not know the content of their conversations with his office. I do
> not think that there is any conspiracy here.
>
> However, having said this, I think that Athens worked precisely
> because there was no need to focus on producing decisions, or a
> report of the meeting, or any document that tried to reach consensus
> on any of the issues. There is a long term process of convergence
> going on here, and I think that it is best served by informal
> discussion as well as by various meetings where people can get to
> know each other and trade opinions off the record. If there are
> clear directions identified that would be beneficial for users of the
> Internet, I think that they will emerge as well from such an
> environment as from an environment that is more formal and more
> oriented toward forcing consensus statements.
>
> i have trouble with the idea of policy making in the absence of
> binding decisions. Surely one thing that the IGF can do is to bring
> to light information and education that will inform the policy making
> process, and I am all for that. However, consider that the IGF
> meetings can be attended by anyone and that neither the IGF nor the
> fora are legal entities. I think the IGF in a good position to
> provide evidence and opinion, but I cannot see how you get any kind
> of policy closure out of it. How, for example, would IGF decisions
> -- assuming that one could even set up a decision making mechanism
> within a forum -- be enforced, and at what level? Governments?
> Industries? I just don't see it. It's the wrong instrument for
> decision making.
>
> The next IGF is likely to be equally interesting, and perhaps some of
> the coalitions that formed in and after Athens will have some
> interesting things to report. We'll see.
>
> Regards,
>
> George
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> At 11:26 AM -0800 2/4/07, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> >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
>
--
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070205/1722b33e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070205/1722b33e/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list