[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Sat Mar 22 02:13:14 UTC 2014

Keith,

yep, things get even more interesting with nuance.

Conditioning funding to IANA cost is another of those paradoxes: those who
complain that IANA should be mostly about stewardship and trust create a
pay-per-service model. Luckily ICANN didn't bite that piece of bait.

Whatever the motives the ccTLDs and other registries had to condition
funding - as they still do, clearly, from your description -  (I don't
think exactly as you) the good news is that you and many other ccTLDs
consider the topie of accountability and transparency of the finances
resolved. In fact maybe we agree that a lot of the ATRT work ends up
creating lots of bureaucracy where simpler solutions exist.

So this resonates with the principles of Reciprocity and Simplicity put
forward by the Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance
Ecosystem. What do you know, no surprise there, right?

I agree that designs of a future ICANN - or the more-constrained issue of
substitution of the NTIA's functions - should protect against parties going
rogue. "Follow the money" and "look who has some turf to defend" would be
good guidelines to spot the riskiest ones. These are good design
constraints because they induce a careful, rational risk analysis. Other
variables in the Panel's report respond to this as well.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz>wrote:

>
>
> On 22/03/2014 3:42 a.m., Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>
>> Keith, Wolfgang, all,
>>
>> only partly true. I'll skip details and go to the consequences: as
>> ccTLDs and RIRs contribute only marginally to ICANN's funding, the
>> majority of ICANN's funds stem from the gTLD space.
>>
>
> Only partly true Alejandro. ICANNs inability to provide meaningful
> financial information regarding the costs it incurs re ccTLDs was the main
> reason for limited contribution from ccTLDs. Furthermore the greatest costs
> for ICANN are policy development programmes, compliance projects etc
> relating to the gTLDs. ccTLDs are not bound to ICANN policies, registry
> agreements etc. But anyway, within weeks of ICANN finally producing
> meaningful costings for the support of ccTLDs, the ccNSO approved a formula
> that could result in ccTLDs paying their share of ICANN costs.
>
>  A paradox ensues in which the same parties that do not contribute funds
>> complain about ICANN being overly dependent on a single source of funding.
>>
>
> Many of the participative, developed ccTLDs have been contributing
> voluntarily to ICANN for many years. But you are painting a single picture
> that is not a reflection of reality Alejandro. There are many ccLTDs who
> support the ICANN model, financially and philisophically. There are huge
> amounts of historic costs picked up by ccTLDs outside of the ICANN
> financial records - for example, until recently, ccTLDs were nearly always
> the local host for ICANN meetings, and the costs to local hosts tended to
> range from $300,000 to $500,000 per meeting.
>
>  Given that Wolfgang brings up the "T-bone" nickname (not extensively
>> used) another piece of folklore could have arisen and didn't, "pony up
>> or shut up", to use some deep USian vernacular for the principle of
>> corresponsibility. Water under the river now.
>>
>
> Yes, sadly a claim made by the misinformed. All the ccTLDs sought from
> ICANN was accountability and transparency of the finances, before
> committing to its own funding. Now truly resolved for this topic.
>
> The reason for discussing the original topics on this thread was to remind
> folks (or provide information to folks who weren't around in those days)
> that the ICANN staff and board can take unpalatable decisions and drive
> ICANN down undesirable paths, or can alienate some stakeholders to satisfy
> others - showing the extremely delicate path of achieving consensus in the
> multistakeholder environment. The risk going forward is that a couple of
> key changes of people in a couple of key positions can start to move ICANN
> away from its core principles. So what we develop for the future structures
> should insulate us from ICANN going rogue. Having all eggs in one basket is
> a recipe for greater problems rather than lesser problems, imho.
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140321/0e646c08/attachment-0001.html>