[At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat May 13 19:28:40 UTC 2017
I doubt that the CCWG will create a specific
carve-out for IGF funding at this stage, And I
would hope it will not prohibit such applications.
To what extent funding either the global or
regional IGFs is within ICANN's mission and scope
is something that has already and I presume will continue to be debated.
For those who have an interest in the subject and
have not already done so, I found that listening
to the Board session on the ICANN support and
funding of IGFs at the recent Board Workshop was
really good use of an hour -
At 12/05/2017 06:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>âOh 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.â
>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
><<mailto:evan at telly.org>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.)
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large