[At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help

[Ken Whitehurst]

While Canada is a G7 country, its record when it comes to consumer representation is dismal, well by Canadian democratic standards. ;-)
So there is a huge need for resources here to engage matters like Internet governance. Debates are raging here about many matters touched by Internet governance, from privacy to commercial security to cultural expression. Our organization will be addressing a standing committee of Canada's Parliament around Internet privacy and security issues this Tuesday. 
The consumer perspective does not get the well-rounded discussion here it deserves in all these matters because of the limited capacity of consumer associations, and by that I mean associations of "retail" consumers with an interest in the functioning of the Internet. This constituency is not well formed or heard. We have become involved in the ICANN process because we think Internet governance issues are at the nexus of an unfolding crisis of security and authentication breaches that threaten the trust of consumers in what has become one of the world's most important global institutions, the Internet.
The resources created by the assignment of Internet identity must be used in some measure to increase understanding of Internet governance and to facilitate consumer representation and understanding, whether through associations or by individuals. But we believe associations will be the most capable and effective protagonists in this complex area on behalf of the heterogeneous consumer constituency that our organization seeks to represent.
Canada is not the EU and it is not the US and it certainly is not China in terms of economic scale and ability to aggregate resources for this purpose, and it's people and civil society organizations have much in common with many other countries and their citizens around the world in requiring resources from the cash flows of the system of the Internet itself to participate in global Internet governance. 
So we think this should be on the table in any discussion of the dispersement of proceeds of income raised directly or indirectly from Internet users, as well as the need to increase the awareness of publics around the world about the processes of Internet governance.
My apologies if I am not on point. But since Internet governance was raised as an objective of funding, I am responding to this additional point.

--
Ken Whitehurst
Executive Director
Consumers Council of Canada

> On May 13, 2017, at 2:47 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Evan
> 
> There is a process for deciding on what to do with the cash - and it will require lots of divergent hands up.  that said, I can think of two ways that money could be spent that would be in the community’s interests.  The first is to target those areas (i.e., the rest of the world outside the US and Europe) that did not figure significantly in the first round - to find out why, and to address those issues.  Thesecond (or maybe a part of it) would be IGF support.  If one of the  reasons for the US finally giving IANA to ICANN was about making sure the UN wasn’t in charge, there is an argument that the IGF should also not be beholden to the UN
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
>> On 13 May 2017, at 8:59 am, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ​Oh and before anyone replies on procedure:
>> 
>> I am fully aware that this stage of the WG is dealing with broad criteria and not specific recipients.​
>> 
>> But in the world of Internet Governance, the IGF is in a category of its own and IMO it is reasonable to discuss its inclusion at a structural level at this point.
>> 
>>> On 12 May 2017 at 18:55, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that there's really a disagreement between Ken and John.
>>> 
>>> Informing the world of the function of the DNS -- and of ICANN's crucial role in that piece of infrastructure -- is both within scope and of high value. There are ways that this can be deployed in ways that don't constitute vanity and self-aggrandizing.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Personally I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the fact nobody in this list, especially my civil society colleagues, are advocating use of auction proceeds to seed an ongoing endowment for the IGF. There are many important parts of Internet governance, but ICANN is the only one of them that attracts so much money and speculative/entrepreneurial behavior. ICANN could almost overnight render itself one of the global heroes of the Internet ecosystem if it provided ongoing support of other related bits such that the IGF could maintain vitality and independence.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, it is in ICANN's selfish best interest to promote multi-stakeholderism throughout the universe of IG. If government multilateral activity can successfully encroach on the ecosystem due to weakness/failure of the IGF, then ICANN will surely be a target next.
>>> 
>>> Just a thought. If ALAC got behind this and the idea gained broad support, ICANN will find a way to define such action to be within scope.
>>> 
>>> (Disclosure: I have never even attended an IGF, so I am hardly acting in a self-serving manner in proposing this endowment. One doesn't have to be in the IGF to see its value.)
>>> 
>>> - Evan
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Evan Leibovitch
>> Toronto, Canada
>> Em: evan at telly dot org
>> Sk: evanleibovitch
>> Tw: el56
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170513/c0f5aade/attachment.html>