[discuss] Current drive

Thu Apr 3 18:33:54 UTC 2014

Tks Wolfgang,

And you certainly have more direct knowledge and insight than I do...

But following on from your comments let me offer a somewhat divergent
observation and proposal.

Accepting your points that:

1.       ICANN concentrates more than ever on its core business (DNS) and is
trying to further improve its performence and excellence (ATRT, new gTLD,
whois, security, stability and resilience). 

2.       ICANN has recognized that it does not live isloated but is part of
a broader Internet Governance Ecosystem. 

3.       If ICANN want to continue to manage its core business correctly, it
has also to invest into an envorinment which allows to do this.

4.       a source on inspiration  for the governance of other Internet
(public policy) issues, excuted by somebody else, not by ICANN

But a couple of other points:

1.       ICANN’s privileged position in the Internet gives it the
opportunity to obtain significant revenues from the Internet—some have
described this as “rent” others as a “tax” on the Internet and/or Internet
users.

2.       Given the nature of ICANN’s role and history these funds I would
argue are in a sense funds collected on behalf of the entire Internet
community which I, at least, would define as everyone since everyone in the
world is now in one way or another impacted by the Internet, with increasing
numbers more directly involved in contributing either directly or indirectly
to the content and operation of the Internet. (If these funds are not
collected on behalf of the global internet community who in fact are they
being collected for and by what authority?)

3.       This “tax” is justified (and justifiable) given the contribution
which ICANN makes to the effective operation of the Internet globally and on
behalf of the global community.

4.       These funds are thus a public trust.

5.       However, some have argued that there is a significant discrepancy
between what ICANN collects and what is necessary/its costs for (at least)
the technical functions that it performs.

6.       This as you say is the basis for its “investment in the broader
Internet Governance Ecosystem”

The question then is, are these funds being  “invested” by ICANN in its role
as a public trustee? If so, I think it is arguable that the current
expenditure pattern is in part inappropriate and that the funds not required
to support the technical functioning of the Internet should in fact be
expended not as an aspect of ICANN’s internal operations but rather in
support of the public interest with accountability being established to some
form of global body representing the global public interest.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 12:50 AM
To: michael gurstein; Shatan, Gregory S.; S Moonesamy;
parminder at itforchange.net; Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Current drive

Michael:

Does this mean that if ICANN expands it's area of interest/activity into
broader fields of Internet and Internet associated policy and governance (as
seems to be the current drive) you would support the application of the MS
model simply because it is currently working in certain areas of ICANN's
activity, irrespective of the particular policy area to which it might be
applied.

Wolfgang:

I do not see this "current drive" and there is no "mission creep". What I
see is that ICANN concentrates more than ever on its core business (DNS) and
is trying to further improve its performence and excellence (ATRT, new gTLD,
whois, security, stability and resilience). 

At the same time, ICANN has recognized that it does not live isloated but is
part of a broader Internet Governance Ecosystem. If ICANN want to continue
to manage its core business correctly, it has also to invest into an
envorinment which allows to do this. What ICANN offers into this broader
debate is its (good and bad) experiences, best practices and "lessons
learned". Some ICANN "inventions", like the bottom up open, transparent and
inclusive PDP (in particular in the GNSO), could become a source on
inspiration  for the governance of other Internet (public policy) issues,
excuted by somebody else, not by ICANN. 

Good to see that after Singapore governments in the GAC obvioulsy value the
option of an early engagement.  This will strengthen the multistakeholder
model, which is still in its infant stage. 

w

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140403/5e5d7078/attachment-0001.html>