[governance] ICANN taxes/fees (was: Caucus at IGF stock taking meeting)
Mawaki Chango
ki_chango at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 6 01:31:49 EST 2007
Thanks George for your clarification on both points, which I
understand.
I don't necessarily desagree with what you say (or heard someone say)
about the success factor of Athens, but the same situation may
sometimes equally lead to two opposite outcomes: an intelligent,
elegant, and effective collaboration at multiple levels, as well as
inertia (or at least nothing to the credit of this process.) So I
guess it makes sense that some people are willing to remain vigilant,
engaged and questioning.
Nothing here is simple: those who are advocating for some change
(improvement) are not necessary all calling for a UN-style of
administration, or an intergovernmental-dominated solution in
response. And, if I can make a comment here (not necesarily for you
George but to some who may have been attempted to think otherwise,)
posting in a thread titled "ICANN taxes/fees" does not necessarily
mean that one does either take position for ICANN or call for
governments to crack down on ICANN with taxes. End of the
digression... and of the disclaimer, so to speak.
Last, your view about flexible and effective collaboration
(diplomacy?) for IGF is closer in my view to the style of the
"multi-stakeholderism" we've been talking about, as opposed to solemn
signatory rituals and the kind of processes that usually lead to
them. And at this point, I can only agree wholeheartedly with Bill
Drake's response to you about what really matters, eventually, in the
form and in the substance.
Salut,
Mawaki
--- 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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