[governance] IGF financing

Lee McKnight LMcKnigh at syr.edu
Thu Jun 14 17:02:49 EDT 2007


Hi Folks,

Let's step back and put this string in some historical context shall we?

It is not unusual for financing mechanisms and agenda-setting/control issues to be inter-mixed with heated rhetoric. Especially early in the process of establishing a new institution.

If we recall ICANN's earliest days, there was an appeal for individual contributions - you can blame or credit yours truly for throwing $250 into the pot back then - and then the Markle foundation, Cisco, and I forget who else put up $$ to help get ICANN started. The idea of a $1 tax per domain going to ICANN was shot down by the time the US Congress held hearings about it, never mind the EU and others not amused by taxation without representation.   But over time ICANN figured out financing mechanisms that worked for it and its stakeholders, more or less. I guess some WSIS participants might be of the 'less' opinion but anyway.

So while some may (pretend to) be 'shocked!' that the conversation on the list has taken the turn it has, I would be shocked if folks who were putting money in didn;t expect their concerns to be heard.  

In others words: my forecast is for several years of debate and at times heated rhetoric on IGF financing (and the scope of its mandate), and yes for fuinders to pull out if IGF takes a turn they percieve to be against their interests.  

Therefore, in my opinion, this caucus should not count on the benevolence of governments or industry stakeholders to ensure its interests are represented well within IGF, but should instead take the high ground and direct action of  establishing mechanisms to channel contributions of individual Internet users from wherever, to ensure civil society from north and south has paid for its own seat at the virtual table.  

(The 'threat' of particular groups to pull funding is not made idly, but can be met with an 'I'm sorry to hear you feel that way' indifference if as Carlos suggests their contributions are only a small part of the pie.)

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> ca at rits.org.br 6/14/2007 9:10 AM >>>
It is clear IGF does not need contributions from all 174+ govs who 
agreed to create it -- if they (and more) did it, fine, but the total 
budget (including a far more significant amount to make sure Southern 
interest groups are better represented) is not a big one. I would 
suggest a cap (no one would contribute more than, say, 15% of the total 
budget, and there are no strings of any kind attached to any 
contribution), to make sure no single entity provides a big enough chunk 
of funding which would enable it to leverage decisions in its favor. 
Yes, and it would of course be open to contributions from 
non-governmental entities as well (pluralist participation and pluralist 
funding).

--c.a.

Robert Guerra wrote:
> let's not forget that the government of Canada announced at the last IGF 
> open consultation that they were contributing 100, 000 dollars 
> exclusively for IGF fellowships . Perhaps not picked up on this list, 
> but something that is significant.
> 
> At today's exchange rate, that is approx 93,670 USD or 70,381.264  € . 
> If only other govts did the same we'd have funds not only for 
> participation but also for a slightly larger secretariat.
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Robert
> ---
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
> Managing Director, Privaterra
> Tel +1 416 893 0377
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13-Jun-07, at 3:43 AM, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 6/11/07 6:44 PM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" 
>> <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'd be happy to learn what your own preference would be, what 
>>> concrete solution you favor : just governments ? or just the UN ? or 
>>> just some international organizations ? The key question is, again : 
>>> what is the appropriate financing structure for the IGF in order to 
>>> guarantee regularity of resources and independence from lobbies and 
>>> pressure groups ? Can we address this issue calmly, with the 
>>> attention it deserves ?
>>>
>> ------
>>
>> According to this news item from yesterday, 
>> www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/12/igf_nominet_2007/ 
>>
>> "Kummer has spent much of the last six months trying to win more 
>> funding. At a meeting at Parliament last week, hosted by Nominet, the 
>> not-for-profit which operates the .uk registry, the Department of 
>> Trade and Industry announced it had found £23,000 down the back of its 
>> sofas (the Swiss government has donated $500,000)."
>>
>> 174 states & the EU signed off on the Tunis Agenda creating the IGF.  
>> If just ten more could find some chump change in their sofas 
>> (equivalent to about a nanosecond of their foreign affairs budgets, or 
>> maybe one cocktail break at the G8), we (taxpayers all---to two 
>> countries in the case of us unfortunate US expats) wouldn't need to 
>> have this conversation, the IGF could have something more like a 
>> secretariat, and Markus could refocus his energies.  To me the 
>> question is not can we shake micropayments out of individual taxpayers 
>> and financially marginal NGOs, but rather what sort of game are the 
>> governments playing here.
>>
>> Two cents,
>>
>> Bill
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brazil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br 
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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