I am sensitive to the problem of mission creep.  But part of ICANN's
mission is to coordinate technical stability.  It seems to me that
encouraging and facilitating conferences on such matters falls within
ICANN's general purview and fosters coordination rather than top-down
management.

I am also sensitive to the fact that, in gross political terms, this is an
outreach bribe and an effort by ICANN to build a support among a
traditionally hostile constituency.

If we dislike this approach, I urge us to suggest an alternative.  It is
possible for ICANN to still encourage such conferences without direct
expenditures of money.

Harold

At 06:45 PM 1/25/2005, Robin Gross wrote:
>I oppose this proposal as outside the scope of ICANN's role.  And while
>helping poor countries sounds great at first, I think it could give
>ICANN too much power to "help" these countries to do as ICANN would like.
>
>Robin
>
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>Some time in the next week we will teleconference with ICANN staff
>>about the strategic plan. I am formulating a response. One issue strikes
>>me as open to debate. ICANN proposes to create a "Restricted Fund for
>>Developing Country Internet Communities."
>>
>>Do we favor or oppose?
>>
>>In favor: ICANN provides support for workshops and technical forums in
>>developing countries. The governance model of ICANN has been critizied
>>by many on grounds that it does not foster participation from developing
>>countries. This can be viewed as an appropriate response.
>>
>>Oppose: this steps outside of ICANN's coordination role and makes it
>>into a much more expansive welfare state type of agency. Those who are
>>supported by ICANN are also, to a large degree, under the control of
>>ICANN; it might be better for independent agencies (foundations, higher
>>education institutions, civil society organizations, governments) to
>>provide this kind of support.
>>
>>Please give me your opinion.