[discuss] [governance] Re: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Mar 24 03:51:48 UTC 2014
On Monday 24 March 2014 07:18 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Coming back to the topic - But really, are there all that many civil society people who prefer only public funding and governmental oversight?
> judging by the responses so far on the various lists this has
> traversed (I note that we are only on governance list now) the answer
> is "no"
Again, public funding is fully conflated with governmental oversight.
The Just Net Coalition presented a proposal for ICANN oversight which
(1) does not consist of governmental oversight, but oversight by a
Technical Oversight and Advisory Board with a composition that is
regionally balanced and consists of techno-political membership - people
with technical expertise and standing, but will some degree of political
processes around their selection. Pl see the proposal at
(2) Seeks that this structure, which patently cannot be called
governmental oversight, be publicly funded. In this regard, the public
funds are the tax that ICANN collects from global Internet website
owners in form of a part of the domain name fees. (There could be other
ways how public financie for global IG functions can be organsied, say
0.01 percent tax of global e-commerce, which is collected and managed by
a body with clear rules regarding collection and allocation.)
Therefore, as spoken of in my original email, dismissive-ness about non
market logic based systems of governance, or any kind of democratic
governance systems, continues by maligning and distorting well
-established political concepts, and such other devices...
>> --srs (iPad)
>>> On 23-Mar-2014, at 19:59, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
>>>> Which is why I am glad that parminders views are still a tiny minority not shared by civil society in general.
>>> There is absolutely no evidence which could sustain this statement; as a matter of fact I trust, at the countrary, it applies much better to your views.
>>> The only way to assess such statements is to conduce a survey among the membership about some basic
>>> questions which represent the lines of fracture of the debate here.
>>> I would strongly suggest the new co-co team to consider seriously this possibility in the medium term.
>>> However, even if such survey would be conducted (and if it is realized with the appropriate criterias) the results only will reflect
>>> the position of the part of civil society which is member of this forum and in no way the "civil society in general" to quote your words.
>>> The issue of outreach of the IGF towards a larger civil society stakeholders is another serious matter to be considered.
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the discuss