[discuss] Current drive

Thu Apr 3 22:14:19 UTC 2014

But thats precisely where I am arriving at and with a necessary twist.
ATRT was for ICANN in its state before the RZM and IANA stewardship
transition, now its a whole different ball game.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Fouad
>
>> Accountability to a community within ICANN and to a
>>
>> global community are two different issues.
>
>
> ICANN's Accountability and Transparency commitments and its ongoing efforts
> to improve that by the ATRT process is not directed towards Accountability
> to the ICANN community but to the Global Stakeholders.  There have been two
> ATRT exercises so far, and there is a tremendous promise to further improve
> the review exercise, bring up improvements, in a manner more visible to the
> Global Community that ICANN strives towards greater standards of
> Accountability and Transparency. It will happen.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One thing that concerns me is that can ICANN perform both the roles
>> effectively for RZM planning and management and then the IANA function
>> planning and management and how will a governance, accountability and
>> transparency model be developed to ensure that ICANN is at least
>> accountable. Accountability to a community within ICANN and to a
>> global community are two different issues. ICANN does find some path
>> towards this within its infant ms model of 15 years for being
>> accountable and being transparent is a whole different effort and we
>> somewhat have a feeling of how true is that.
>>
>> So far, I've seen discussions within 1net, ICANN and ISOC trying to
>> cope with the understanding of stewardship.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > This part of what Wolfgang wrote is very well said:
>> >
>> >> ICANN has recognized that it does not live isolated but is part of a
>> >> broader Internet Governance Ecosystem. If ICANN want
>> >> s
>> >> to continue to manage its core business correctly, it has also to
>> >> invest
>> >> into an environment which allows to do this.
>> >
>> >
>> > If this is agreed, then we also need to agree that such an effort
>> > requires
>> > resources, though I wouldn't brand the flow of revenues as "taxes" or
>> > "rent". If ICANN acknowledges its broader role and starts "investing" in
>> > broader causes of Global Public interest of importance to the Internet,
>> > then
>> > Michael Gurstein's "other points" are automatically answered.
>> >
>> > I would consider the multi-stakeholder model of ICANN as a model barely
>> > 15
>> > years old, so in its crawling stage of infancy (Compare it with
>> > Democracy
>> > which is over 2000 years old :) ) For a model of Governance that is
>> > barely
>> > 15 years old, ICANN has done exceedingly well. If we could acknowledge
>> > it
>> > this way, then it becomes easier to contribute to make the ICANN
>> > governance
>> > better in areas where improvements are needed.
>> >
>> > Sivasubramanian M
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:33 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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?)
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Michael -
>> >>
>> >>    If ICANN is collecting more than is necessary for fulfilling its
>> >> mission regarding
>> >>    coordination and stability of Internet identifier system (including
>> >> appropriate and
>> >>    conservative reserve development given such its very important
>> >> mission), then
>> >>    that should be fixed; it represents a simple governance challenge
>> >> with
>> >> respect
>> >>    to those paying for the services and the overall cost of delivery.
>> >>
>> >>    Repainting the funds as a "tax" in the public trust, and then
>> >> establishing a regime
>> >>    for management of them would change the nature of ICANN, effectively
>> >> creating
>> >>    "taxation" powers that  would normally be reserved for governments,
>> >> and
>> >> completely
>> >>    without need, purely resulting from the avoidance of addressing what
>> >> should be
>> >>    a simple issue.
>> >>
>> >>    There are associations which coordinate systems such as credit card
>> >> numbers and
>> >>    bar codes, and charge the organizations who use those systems, with
>> >> the
>> >> resulting
>> >>    imputed costs passed along as a nominal component of what is seen by
>> >> the public.
>> >>    I'd prefer that none of these organizations starting pretending to
>> >> be
>> >> governmental
>> >>    taxation authorities by collecting more than they need for their
>> >> narrow
>> >> mission; the
>> >>    same logic applies to ICANN in its mission of coordination of the
>> >> Internet identifier
>> >>    spaces.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> /John
>> >>
>> >> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> > India +91 99524 03099
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > discuss mailing list
>> > discuss at 1net.org
>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa