[governance] IGF Financing

[Adam Peake]

quick thought... what do we mean by IGF Financing?

Secretariat?

Financing to date has meant financing the secretariat.  How much do 
we think the secretariat needs to operate effectively?

Thanks,

Adam




>  >>> nb at bollow.ch 6/11/2007 9:42 AM >>>
>>Would it be an improvement if the IGF process was funded
>>out of the U.N. budget?
>
>probably not. That would make it totally beholden to the nation-state
>system. See this URL for a good factsheet on the travails of UN
>financing.
>http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/2006/04factsheet.pdf
>
>This quotation is noteworthy:
>
>"Table 1 illustrates that the major
>contributors [US, Japan, UK, Germany, NL]
>pay much more than their mandatory,
>assessed contributions. This discrepancy occurs
>because countries dedicate voluntary contributions
>to those UN funds and programs that deem them
>most promising and compatible with their own
>agenda. By earmarking contributions, countries can
>increase their leverage and pursue political influence
>on UN activities."
>
>and...
>
>"For 2006, only 40 member states have
>paid their dues entirely and on time. As a result of
>the financial impasse, the Secretary-General often
>has to cross-borrow money..."
>
>IGF would be a tiny drip in the faucet of UN money, but by the same
>token there are probably 1,000 other such tiny drips that would like to
>be part of the automatic, assessed budget. Getting recognized as such
>would require....political support from the major powers.
>
>I need to think about it more carefully, but Bertrand's idea of MS
>financing seems to me to have merit. Not on a project by project basis,
>as that would obviously make the agenda the plaything of governmental
>and corporate interests, but let's say that the regular budget was
>divided into quotas per "stakeholder" group, e.g. 30% from govts, 30%
>from PS, 20% from CS, and 20% from the international organizations
>within its purview (ICANN, UNESCO, ITU, WIPO, etc.). Maybe this requires
>some kind of "membership" in which participants get certified as
>belonging to some sector and once so recognized, assume some kind of
>honorary obligation to meet those quotas.
>
>Another idea is some kind of an independent "tax" or fee on some facet
>of internet activity. The most successful and prosperous international
>orgs (ICANN, WIPO) are based on these. (Hmmm, should we call it the "bit
>tax?" No, maybe not.) E.g., a certain percentage of the proceeds of gTLD
>auctions held by ICANN are handed over to the IGF, a certain percentage
>of IP address fees.... People will just love this idea, just as they
>currently love paying taxes for other things.
>
>Well, I enjoy this talk of financing, it's a good dose of reality and a
>great corrective to those who think words can by themselves transform
>global political and economic realities. In making financial
>commitments, people will think hard about what value the IGF actually
>delivers, and that is a healthy thing, in my opinion.
>____________________________________________________________
>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