ICANN Budget Questioned

Thing I am writes "The proposed 2004-5 budget for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has hit a snag - the rest of the world is refusing to pay its share of the bill. ICANN last week proposed a budget of $15.8m for next year, nearly twice as much as its current annual expenditure."

Comments

Question about ICANN's place in the world

[Altima(BoB)]

From the article: "ICANN is relying on the fact that Europe's Internet registries (although CENTR, despite its name, represents far more than just European interests) will want to have ICANN in charge more than they will want an international body controlled by governments (the ITU)"

I'm not getting something. Why would a (I presume) for-profit corporation like ICANN be preferable to a system controlled by governments? Honest question, I'm really curious. What does ICANN offer that this ITU doesn't?

Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world

[fractaloon]

Why would a (I presume) for-profit corporation like ICANN be preferable to a system controlled by governments?

Actually, ICANN is a non-profit according to their website. I'm guessing they want to jack up their salaries 20 fold and the easiest way is to try and hold everyone at gunpoint.

Re:Question about ICANN's place in the world

[leerpm]

Because the ITU falls under the control of the UN. At the UN, both the US and Europe have much less influence and control. By handing 'control of the Internet' over to the UN, the developed nations would run the risk of less developed nations using their new found control as a bargaining chip against the US/Europe in other matters.

Personally, I don't really want to see the Internet become an issue that gets rolled into trade negotiations. The Europeans don't want to see ICANN folded into under the wings of the ITU. But they are fed up with the ways things are being run at ICANN, and holding up funding is just a temporary tactic designed to try and bring about some change at ICANN.

Good

[UberOogie]

Considering they only need $1 million to do their core duties, I'd be asking for a fairly detailed itemized bill before I fork over twice as much as last year with no increase in operating costs.

Re:Due to lack of funding...

[Zeinfeld]

The only significant new cost in ICANN's budget is littigation.

There would be no real problem with ICANN if there was a rational process for appointing it. The problem here is that a constitution designed for a benevolent dictator is now in the hands of a group of people with the outlook of a US CEO.

This is the sort of thing that happened at the New York Stock Exchange.

Re:Due to lack of funding...

[leerpm]

But in the article it also states they are requesting a lot more money for the IANA. Twenty times more in fact. With the RIRs and LIRs taking over more of the duties with respect to number assignment in IPv6, I don't see why the IANA needs so much more money.

Somebody at ICANN needs to wise up, and stop trying so many power grabs. They should be delegating as much as possible to the regional/country authorities. Instead they seem to be on a crusade to be the ultimate ruling body on all matters relating to the Internet. And yet, they have shown they barely have the strength to stand up to a company like VeriSign.

Re:Dr. Evil

[loyalsonofrutgers]

$16 million is plenty of money. I agree that it very comfortably falls into any "margin of waste" for governments, but it's hardly nothing. For instance, it's roughly the budget shortfall of my old school district that I went to high school in. If I was The World Community and had to decide between a specific appropriation so a bunch of bureaucrats could fly around on private corporate jets at public expense and funding the education of a few thousand children, I'd cut ICANN loose too.

Re:Due to lack of funding...

[Dogtanian]

And we Brits invented electricity

That's right. Anyone who tells you it existed before that is lying.

Those fish that give you electric shocks only evolved the skill after stealing the idea from the Brits.

Mother Nature, you owe UK plc humungous amounts of money for your unauthorised use of electricity in your 'thunder' and 'lightning' services.

Your type of thinking is the reason you guys are currently up to your ass in the Iraq quagmire

Yeah, I'm glad that there aren't any British troops in Iraq too. *cough*

that and the fact that your incompetent "President" got taken by a ride by Iranian intelligence.

Call me a sceptic, but I see this as more like the WMD thing "not being as good an excuse to invade Iraq as we'd hoped".

And I can't be arsed going into much depth about Tony Blair, save that he either believes the bullshit put out before, during and "after" the war, which makes him an idiot. Or alternatively, that he previously went along with the Iraq thing to preserve Britain's influence with the US; except that it's obvious now that Britain only has influence when they do what the US want them to do- i.e. they *don't* have any influence, and Tony Blair is still behaving like the US's dementedly loyal poodle.

Being a sceptic, I went along with the second explanation, and it's only recently dawned on me how incompetent and one-dimensional Tony Blair is.

Oh, and I am a "Brit" too if you want to call me that.