[ga] Is Vint more equal than other IGF Civil Society Members ? (was ...)

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08:44 22/09/2007, Roberto Gaetano said
> George Kirikos WROTE:
> > P.S. Vint is underpaid by Google if he has to ask for $5,000
> > from ICANN, sheesh. One would think that $5,000 should be
> > less than one day's salary+bonus.
>
> The problem is not the amount of money but the conflict of interest. If Vint
> is participating representing ICANN, ICANN should pay. Otherwise he would be
> there representing Google, or in a personal capacity.
Dear Roberto,
This position of yours (as an ICANN BoD Vice-Chair) raises touchy but 
key democratic/polycratic issues we cannot avoid now.
1) There would definitely be a COI if Vint's ICANN representation 
mission in Rio was not precisely detailed by the BoD. Either he is 
the voice of ICANN and this must be transparent to the ICANN, 
Internet, and WSIS/IGF communities, or ICANN hires the voice and 
ideas of "Civil Society Vint" (that Google from the Private Sector 
area also rents on a yearly basis) creating a major COI. This is 
because we are many to consider Google as a leading market competitor 
and questionable IETF lobbyist/sponsor, for the reasons documented by 
the IAB in its RFC 3869 on Internet R&D financing. Moreover, RFC 3869 
points are among the motivations that lead to the creation of the IGF.
Please understand, I have no problem in Vintnet being supported in 
Rio, but Karlnet, Joopnet, Alacnet, icannet, ietfnet, n(e)tia, 
jfcnet, etc. should be equally supported and funded. Also, it should 
be clear that during the whole Rio meeting Vint, and no one else 
should refer to his Google employeeship and experience/solutions, 
except as for any former employee could do.
2) this creates an ICANN BoD Chair credibility. Vint is going to have 
a successor as a Chair of the ICANN BoD. Will he be a Vint's puppet? 
Will he attend the IGF Rio meeting? Who will eventually speak for 
ICANN: Vint or the new elected Chair? Your above position is very 
important because you are the ICANN BoD Vice-Chair, because many 
consider (support that) you might be this new ICANN Chair, and 
because in different areas (like the IANA evolution) a question one 
may have is "who is to be the real operator".
3) Moreover, there are problems enough with the current internet and 
in Vint addressing area: attempting to transfer them to Vintnet in 
the public's mind is a bad turn to Vint. It would also signal that 
apart from Vint, ICANN has no
On another hand, if the idea is to promote Vint's "don't fix what 
ain't broke" message, it might speed up the "we better replace it 
before it does" emerging consensus (IGF is for "emerging" issues).
4) Anyway, this rates the Internet Community accepted Rio individual 
participation cost for an IGF civil society voluntary. This means 
that the Internet community should guarantee the same budget to every 
concerned civil society voluntary, or force down every IGF 
participant (from every sector [industry, Govs, International orgs]) 
to the same non private budget as mine and many's ($ 0). Otherwise, 
this means that some stakeholders would be far more equal than 
others, and would bias the whole IGF process and credibility.
5) all this are definitely a matter for the IGF Dynamic Coalition on 
the Internet Governance. It is also an added motivation for the 
creation of an IGF "ICANN Dynamic Coalition" to publicly, 
transparently, efficiently cover the ICANN emerging issues.
jfc