[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<21947256.1254599995816.JavaMail.root at mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
, at 14:59:55 on Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams 
<jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>>In the UK we have an organisation called the Charity Commissioners, who
>>provide quite a lot of oversight.
>Yes, but does the Charity Commissioners have any real clout or force
>of law of any sort?  My guess is no

They are currently "striking off" a number of fee-paying schools because 
those schools are not considered "charitable enough" (there is some 
debate what this exactly means, but it probably includes giving a 
certain number of sponsored places to disadvantaged families, as well as 
allowing their facilities, such as sports fields, to be used by the 
wider community outside teaching hours). If they lose the charitable 
status, there are tax implications.

>and not on a multijurisdictional basis

Not sure what you men by that.

>>>undesirable.
>>
>>Very few charities are operating in the Internet space.
>I disagree, many Charity organizations olerate on the internet.

Many have a promotional website, but few are involved in the Internet 
Community. One reason for that is funders (other charities, trusts, 
legacies etc) have not yet caught up with the concept that charities 
generally operate at physical places, for the benefit of particular 
physical communities, and well known bricks-and-mortar benefits.

eg "We have funds for charities running soup kitchens[#1] for the 
unemployed[#2] in the East End of London[#3]". Fail any of the three 
tests and you won't qualify for that particular funding.

I'm currently involved in a project to try to break that particular mold 
(no, not the Nominet Foundation, but a potential recipient of funds).

>>>the situation is now much worse because there's no
>>>accountability to anyone anywhere
>>
>>What, not even the Review Teams? (The accountability might not be
>>perfect, few things are, but they exist).
>
>Accountability means that whatever recourse has to have teeth
>to be effective, otherwise such models to which you refer are
>all roar and no bite.

Is it not the community's responsibility to make sure they have teeth? 
Or at the very least monitor this new process and document its dental 
capability in practice?

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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