Milton, we already have the captured bureaucracy and funding spigot in the toolkit (and I think we see that and similar mechanisms as significant aids to our participation). The difference here is a proposal for funds that the SGs get to decide how to spend rather than ICANN staff doing it. Does having SG control of the funds make the problem you perceive better, or worse?

Cheers

David
On 16/11/2011, at 2:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I oppose this idea. Adamantly. 
> 
> I don't see why domain name registrants should be taxed to support the lobbying of business interests. Cade and the CSG have plenty of means to find funds and to fly themselves and their supporters around. The idea of requiring ICANN to subsidize their "recruitment" activities is extremely distasteful to me. 
> 
> Yes, I know, we would get our pound of flesh, too. I would rather do without it. I think we have the resources to be self-sustaining and believe that the legitimacy of civil society and business representation will be undercut by creating a captured bureaucracy and funding spigot
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of McTim
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:12 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Initial Draft Proposal regarding standard
>> Project Funding to Constituencies/SGs
>> 
>> On 11/15/11, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> There is a draft proposal from the CSG regarding providing standard project
>>> funding to the GNSO constituencies and stakeholder groups (see
>> attached).
>>> I'd be very curious to hear thoughts of the membership as whether we
>> should
>>> support this proposal
>> 
>> I would be happy to support this idea.
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel