We may not be "capturable" under the existing model, but our lack of 
funding creates the same result: the IP and business constituencies 
drive the discussions and ultimately set the rules. 

After all, the world is run by the people who show up.

Its only fair that we should be able to receive funds from ICANN without 
any strings attached at all.

My 2 cents,
Robin


Harold Feld wrote:

> It is a long standing question in public policy as to how to get "good 
> work" funded.  Milton's comments reflect a recognition that funding 
> from any source inevitably has an impact on how people think, even if 
> it is the impact of taking additional steps to be even handed.
> At the same time, where there is no alternative source of funding (and 
> there is none, even the PIR advisory board favored getting ICANN to 
> fund NCUC in the long term rather than continue PIR funding).
>
> And, as Milton will recall, I had my own concerns about making funding 
> NCUC a condition of the .org delegation.  Any funding source will 
> carry with it a set of risks and issues and the question becomes how 
> to manage those risks while defending the integrity of the NCUC and 
> ensuring that we minimize even the appearance of any impropriety.
>
> Given this, and mindful of the risks Milton rightly points out, I 
> think it may be possible to structure ICANN funding in a way that best 
> minimizes the risk to the integrity of the NCUC.  If the money is 
> structured in such a way that it cannot be adjusted, either to 
> increase it or decrease it, for a set period of years per grant, and 
> that ICANN has no authority over its handling or disbursement (subject 
> to adequate financial controls to ensure that NCUC does not 
> misappropriate the funds), it will minimize the risk of "capture" or 
> influence by ICANN.
>
> This is similar to the limit in the US Constitution that the salary of 
> the President, the Vice President and the Judiciary are set by 
> Congress, but cannot be adjusted downward or eliminated during their 
> terms in office.  It balances the need to pay the executive and 
> judiciary while not allowing the pay master to use control of salary 
> to compel a particular result.
>
> I recognize it does not eliminate that risk, but sometimes it is 
> necessary to balance unpleasant alternatives.  As between no revenue 
> or ICANN funding structured in a way that minimizes the risk that 
> ICANN staff will gain influence over the NCUC, I would favor taking 
> the ICANN money.
>
> Harold