- Alac-sc-outreach - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Outreach] Community Outreach Update
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

Dear all, Please register your interest for the Outreach update. Unfortunately I'll be at ATRT2 for most of the days and will therefore not be able to attend. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Outreach] Community Outreach Update Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 03:56:38 +0200 (CEST) From: janice douma lange (via Doodle) <mailer(a)doodle.com> Reply-To: janice douma lange <janice.lange(a)icann.org> To: outreach(a)icann.org janice douma lange invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "Community Outreach Update". <https://doodle.com/?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=l…> Hi there, janice douma lange (janice.lange(a)icann.org) invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "Community Outreach Update". janice douma lange says: http://doodle.com/3qvq542sdg8u5x78 Participate now <https://doodle.com/3qvq542sdg8u5x78?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_in…> What is Doodle? Doodle is a web service that helps janice douma lange to find a suitable date for meeting with a group of people. Learn more about how Doodle works. <https://doodle.com/main.html?tlink=checkOutLink&tmail=poll_invitecontact_pa…> You have received this e-mail because "janice douma lange" has invited you to participate in the Doodle poll "Community Outreach Update". Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 ZÃ¼rich

1 0

Durban
by Roberto Gaetano July 13, 2013

July 13, 2013

Who is in Durban, from the members of this WG? Cheers, R.

1 0

Trip to Caucasus - conclusions and recommendations
by Roberto Gaetano July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

I would like to conclude this sequence of messages with some final consideration and proposals for action. As usual, separate messages for different lists. Regional issue There is wide unhappiness in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) about being considered in the Asia-Pacific-Australasia region, they would rather be included in the European region. I have included some of the rationale in my previous messages, but just to summarize, it is about preferential partnership with Europe for Internet projects, long term plans to join the European Union, being already considered part of Europe in other cases related to music and sport, the proximity to Europe more than to the Pacific rim, and, last but not least, that for IP addresses and ccTLDs often these countries are members of the European regional organizations (RIPE and CENTR). There is an ongoing activity to rethink the ICANN regions. These considerations should be brought forward in that context (actually, I believe that this is the case already, but I would like to bring this item to the attention of the whole ALAC community). IDNs I have noted only mild interest about IDNs in my discussions with the local community. This was a surprise to me, in particular considering that two countries have a different script and the third one has several special characters added to the latin script. Is this a matter of fact, i.e. IDNs will not bring much to the local internet community, neither in terms of business opportunities nor in terms of ease of use by the community, or does this show a lack of promotion and advertisement of the IDNs by ICANN and its stakeholders? I think that this is a serious question: are we spending a lot of resources for something that is only of mild interest, or are we jeopardizing huge efforts by not advertising enough to our community? Also, I have an additional question. This is the feedback I have from the South Caucasus region, but what is the situation in other parts of the world? Does anybody have other types of info? I guess that the deployment of the first IDNs will give a partial answer to this question, but do we really need to wait more to take appropriate marketing steps for what is one of the major innovations in the DNS, and one of ICANN's success stories? Outreach - 1 In my report from Armenia I spoke about the "blank spot" on the ICANN penetration map. Without any doubt, we have much to do in relation to At-Large outreach in the former Soviet Union. ALAC is present with ALSes in very few of these countries, and completely absent in all the "stans". This is related to the situation about human rights, government control, freedom of press, and so on. However, aren't we in a vicious circle? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Had we some active users organizations, wouldn't these be able to influence the government? I think that people living in that reality can contribute more to this debate than somebody like me, who only was there visiting, but unless the local community in the CIS (Community of Independent States) tell me loud and clear that there's nothing we can do to change the situation, I will continue thinking that developing At-Large community and structures must be one of our priorities. If we believe in the multi-stakeholder model, we must be committed to develop this model where it is not fully implemented. I would recommend to have a meeting of the Outreach WG in Durban. I know it is late in the game, but I don't think we need a large room and a long time, if it is not possible to have an "official" meeting I would at least hope that the members of the WG can get together at the bar to have a chat. But of course a meeting with staff support, minutes, and a clear action list as a result would be better. Incidentally, I hope that Veni will be in Durban, because his contribution is essential. I learned that there is already sub-regional collaboration for technical issues related to the internet, and that the internet technical community of the former Soviet Union countries already meets regularly. Shall we seek to have a couple of (Russian-speaking) ALAC members participating, to explore collaboration opportunities? About 10 years ago I went to a CENTR meeting to promote links between the ccTLDs and the forming ALAC. Nothing came out of it, but in time we had some developments, including ccTLD operators joining At-Large. But if we never start, we will never get anywhere. Outreach - 2 Besides outreach to specific geographical areas, it seems that we need outreach plans for specific stakeholder groups. First of all, I had confirmation of something we all had observed over the years: the lack of interest by the scientific and research community in ICANN activities. Is this a matter of fact, i.e. there is no reason why the internet scientific and research community should participate in Internet Governance activities, or do we have here another case of lack of marketing of ICANN's role? The key question is what can ICANN, and ALAC, offer to this community so that we can establish collaboration? If we establish collaboration on specific projects, we will naturally see a higher interest in participation by them. Again, there is probably one simple way: to participate, as observers, to some of the activities that the internet scientific and research community is performing. We need a couple of ALAC members that are technically competent, to be respected by the other participants, that can understand and report what are the needs and priorities, and then we can analyse the implications for the user community and propose contributions. Also, we need to take into account the more general question: "What can ICANN do for the user community?". I am under the impression that, although ALAC has grown in size and importance, the core of our group is still composed by idealists who debate matters of principle. Matters of principle are surely important, but we need also to address some practical needs. For instance, what do we do in support of registrants, to make them better aware of their rights and to help them when they get in trouble with their suppliers? The development of the new TLD programme might make this aspect even more critical. Can we think of training activities, done by ALSes in collaboration with other bodies? I am sure that some ALSes do already this, for instance ISOC chapters are involved in user training, but how much are these experiences shared within ALAC, and used as example for building new activities? For instance, at the ISOC Armenia meeting I spoke with Narine Khachatryan (Media Education Center), who told me about a "train the trainer" programme, an experience that could be interesting to other ALSes. Should we include in the ATLAS II programme some time for sharing these experiences? There are discussions already going on in terms of budget, I do not want to interfere here with the official bodies that are making decisions now, but I strongly believe that ALAC, as a grown-up adult, should be entitled to manage a part of the budget for initiatives that can be decided when the opportunity comes, without having to go for a long and cumbersome approval cycle. If this is done, we should have a budget item earmarked for "Outreach" where we can decide activities that we will perform with the objective of improving our penetration in the wide At-Large community worldwide. Last but not least, when we talk about "Digital Divide" we often think in terms of developing countries vs. industrialized world. However, there are other divides within each country. The experience in the South Caucasus made me aware of the divide between cities and countryside, the problems of scarcely populated areas (I believe we already have an example of ALS operating in Canada in this type of environment), the divide between the digital natives and the others (Tijani might remember a discussion we had in Tunisia years ago about the effort in doing something to help elderly people). I think these are things we need to start thinking about if we want to go to the next step in ALAC's life, which is to be more relevant in the internet community's everyday life, and I am sure that this will bring new people, new organizations, new ideas, and will drive the multi-stakeholder model to a higher level of implementation. Cheers, Roberto

1 0

Trip to Caucasus - Chapter 3 - Georgia
by Roberto Gaetano July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Hi all. Following up my previous reports on Armenia and Azerbaijan, I would like to continue with Georgia. I will also have some final considerations on the region, and some recommendations, but that will be part of a future message. My main contact in the country was Ramaz Kvatadze, from the Georgian Research and Educational Networking Association (GRENA - http://grena.ge/eng/) I had a very good meeting with him, and other short occasional conversations with other folks. The main points that came out from the discussion with Ramaz were (to the best of my recollection, in random order, after validation by Ramaz): . There is an ISOC chapter, not member of the At-Large, some groups are participating in ISOC Community Grants programmes. . The infrastructure is in average good, but there are substantial differences between big cities and remote villages. . While the main problem in the countryside is connectivity, that must be improved, the main complaint in big cities is compliance of the operators with the promised quality of service. . The government has undertaken efforts for developing eGovernment, as of today there are many applications that allow citizen and organizations to obtain certificates and make declarations online. . The scientific and research community is not active on ICANN matters because there is no benefit associated to its participation. . The scientific and research community has strong collaboration with similar communities in other Caucasus countries as well as other geographical areas worldwide, but the main interest and efforts are devoted to cooperation with Europe. . Although Georgia feels strongly more European than Asian, the current location in AP as ICANN geographic region is not felt as an obstacle. However, the main goal of Georgia is to become real member of European community. . The adoption of new technologies (mobile telecommunication, internet) have been slowed down initially by the monopoly situation, but now the competition among operators favours rapid development and strong improvement of the infrastructure. . The main obstacle for further improvement of the ICT infrastructure is lack of financial resources, as private business is unable to invest in development in rural/mountain areas as these are scarcely populated and there will be not enough return on investment. . Georgia has good relationships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, organizing regional meetings in Georgia is easier than in the neighboring countries. In fact almost all regional meetings are organized in Georgia. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have found fair to good internet connectivity. I have experienced a difference between cities and countryside, which confirms the feedback I had from Ramaz. However, the improvement of the connectivity seems no simple task, and other comments I have gathered from different sources, mainly individual internet users, is that the overall connectivity is not the first priority. From a different source, I have learned that Georgia is planning to lay down a second backbone cable that should connect east and west Georgia running close to the southern border (unfortunately, I was unable to get confirmation of this from other sources). It seems that addressing the risk of a cut in the intra-Georgian communication (between east and west Georgia) is a higher priority than addressing the connectivity in remote areas. The reason might appear obvious to people who know the recent history and the current threats of the region. I am under the impression that tourism, that is a flourishing business in Georgia, and rightfully so, can be an incentive to the improvement of the internet infrastructure. For instance, my last day was in Batumi, touristic area on the Black Sea, close to the border with Turkey. I have found a large number of bars, coffee shops, restaurants, that were offering free WiFi. On the other hand, I compare this with Mestia, in the Svaneti, another place with high touristic potential, but on the Caucasus mountains, where no B&B offered WiFi, and I was unable to find any establishment included it. My assumption was, although it was difficult to verify this with the local people, that the limited bandwidth in some areas was the limiting factor. But, as I said, it is just my personal speculation. I had another example of the situation in remote areas travelling to the Tusheti area (in the Caucasus mountains, north-east Georgia). The electric and telephone lines, installed in Soviet times, were abandoned because the cost of maintenance was too high, leaving the whole area without power and connectivity. It has to be said that the road itself to Omalo, the largest village in Tusheti, is passable only by 4x4 vehicles and the Abano pass itself is closed from October to May because of snow. However, the population got organized: almost every household has solar cells and is therefore autonomous for electrical power, and there are GSM (solar-powered) cells that ensure mobile phone connectivity to the valley. I was impressed by this, and thought that this could be an example for other parts of the world, where laying cables is too costly. Incidentally, at about the same time I heard the recent news about the experiments on internet connection via satellite in New Zealand, which shows that new ways are being explored. Talking about mobile phones, there seems to be excellent market penetration. While it is true that the monopoly situation has slowed down the progress, my observation, in cities and also in remote areas, is that the initial delay has been caught up. There is a wide offer, and if you get a local SIM card you can reload it also at ATM-like machines that are widely available for different types of payments. The last comment is about the geopolitical collocation of Georgia. I have to say that travelling through the country I had the impression to be in Europe. Just the signs in Georgian alphabet reminded me that I was in the Caucasus. As a matter of fact, this proximity to Europe made me forget to inquiry about another topic I wanted to get information on: the need, or not, for IDN. However, I have the feeling that, while this is probably an issue in large cities, the main problem in scarcely populated areas remains the connection. Best regards, Roberto Additional note for the Outreach WG: we need a serious discussion about outreach in this region. I have questions like how can we get the attention from GRENA, or ISOC Georgia, how can we improve the action in this region. I believe it will be good to have a F2F meeting in Durban.

1 0

Trip to Caucasus - Chapter 2 - Azerbaijan
by Roberto Gaetano June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

Hi all. Following up my previous report on Armenia, I would like to continue with Azerbaijan. People who went to Baku for the IGF might have collected different information: please feel free to point out where our observations differ. I had a good meeting with Faik Farmanov, from the AZ ccTLD. I contacted also Yashar Hajiyev (ALAC), but our respective schedules did not fit and we could have only short telephone chats. The main points that came out from the discussion were (to the best of my recollection): . The government is investing heavily in the infrastructure, for instance there is a project to improve the connection in all provinces and areas with fiber optics cable . Azerbaijan feels part of Europe, it is a member of the Council of Europe, last year it hosted the Eurofestival, in 2015 will host the 1st European Olympic Games. At present, .AZ is neither a member of CENTR nor of APNIC. . There is a lot of coordination and communication about internet matters between Azerbaijan and other countries. Because of history and language, coordination is easier with other CIS (Community of Independent States, i.e. former USSR Republics) countries and Eastern European countries. However, there is no resistance to collaboration with any country. . Technically, the .AZ operator is ready to implement IDNs, but this is not felt to be a priority, also because there are only few characters in the Azeri alphabet that are not part of the standard ASCII set [my personal observation is that this situation is similar to German or French speaking countries] . At the time of the IGF last December an ICANN delegation including Fadi has met with the President of Azerbaijan, so contacts have been held at the highest level . Azerbaijan is eager to participate to the funding of international internet projects, provided that the coordination will be done in Azerbaijan. Examples of potential domains are Cybersecurity and legal issues related to the internet. Because of history, the legal systems in the CIS countries are similar, and the similar need for training and creation of UDRP entities exists in all of them. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have found fair to good internet connectivity. I have experienced a difference between cities and countryside, which confirms the feedback I had about the priority that the government gives to connectivity for rural areas. Also mobile phones seem to have excellent market penetration. However, my personal experience is that the costs are not very low - although this might well be a consequence of the fact that as a newcomer I could not get the best deals. The country is relatively rich, due primarily to the income from the oil. There is a huge effort in improving the infrastructure, for instance new highways are being built or existing ones are being enlarged. There is also an extensive amount of construction work going on, in Baku but also elsewhere in the country. For instance, I have met Italian architects working in Azerbaijan talking about huge construction projects. All this to say that the progress of the country is visible, and although the progress in building the internet infrastructure is not immediately visible, all indicators would show a rapid development. However, I believe that there is still a lot to do. For instance, once in a mountain village I have been told that there was no internet in the whole village because the cable was broken. In another case, in a small to medium size city, the electricity went out following a heavy storm (causing of course WiFi equipment and modems to fail). One person, not one of my internet contacts, told me: "We need more time, but we are going to fix this". The general feeling I have is that the "digital native" generation has not matured yet. The cultural change that will bring people to think in term of "always online" has not happened yet, at least not fully. On the other hand, I was impressed by the interpersonal communication level that took place, in spite of the language barrier, with people I had never met before. I am wondering whether this human personal relationship that takes place in the physical world is not going to be an obstacle that can slow down the transition to virtual communication. This might have an impact in our outreach strategy, in the sense that it is a factor that has to be taken into account. I am under the impression that only through interpersonal contacts we will be able to make progress in the development of the AtLarge community in the country. Also, we need to use the already existing links among the countries of the region, that are still solid in spite of the difficulties at the political-diplomatic level. Best regards, Roberto

1 0

Trip to Caucasus
by Roberto Gaetano May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013

Hi all. I took the chance of a non-ICANN-related trip to Caucasus to contact the internet people, and specifically the At-Large structures, in the region. I was not on any official ICANN mission, but believe that it is worth anyway to write a short report of my contacts and personal considerations. I am addressing this to different mailing lists with separate messages, to avoid cross-posting. In particular, please note the point made during the meeting about central Asia, and the lack of ALSes in some of the former URSS republics, which prevents development of the multi-stakeholder model in those countries. I had a very interesting meeting in Armenia, hosted by ISOC AM, with the Armenian ALSes. The main points that came out from the discussion were (to the best of my recollection): . The fact that the development of the internet in Armenia is consistently more advanced than in some neighboring countries (for instance, there are 3 ALSes) depends on a mix of elements, including the presence in Armenia of highly skilled ITC professionals as well as the vision that has identified since the early days the potential of the internet. This experience will be very difficult to replicate in other countries, at least in the short term. . Thanks to the early vision, Armenia has developed the "multi-stakeholder" concept also in the management of the internet at the national level. The ccTLD operator, the ISPs, the At-Large structures, commercial organizations, the government, are tightly collaborating, and there is also the initiative of a permanent IGF forum in Armenia. This has allowed to have very advanced positions in international fora, where all stakeholders are contributing, and we do not have the situation that can be seen in other countries, where the government is imposing its view. . Looking at the map of the world, and the location of the ALSes, it appears clearly that there is a wide area, namely the former Soviet Union states in central Asia, where there is no ALAC presence. This is felt to be tightly correlated with the fact that the position that these countries bring in the international debate are only depending on government opinions. In order to promote ICANN's multi-stakeholder approach, ALAC should make an outreach effort to these countries with the objective of gaining members. The general opinion is that this will be a difficult objective to achieve, but nevertheless it is strategically important. . The current location of Armenia in APRALO is creating serious problems. It should be noted that the Armenian ccTLD operator is a member of CENTR (the European ccTLD operators organization), ISPs are getting their addresses from RIPE (the European Regional addressing organization), but the Armenian ALSes are forced to be associated to APRALO. Considering the point above, i.e. the Armenian multi-stakeholder model that brings together different interests to cooperate at the national level, we have the strange situation that national domain names and IP addresses depend from Europe, while At-Large structures depend from a different region. Moreover, there are at the At-Large level cooperation projects ongoing that are coordinated by the European Union, and the location of Armenia in the AP ICANN region does make little sense, if any. For instance, if EURALO develops itself as the partner of the European Union for such European projects, it would be extremely impractical to have participating ALSes being in a different region. Further considerations have been the location of Armenia in Europe in a number of different international organizations. . Armenia, being part of the former Soviet Union, has kept a network of contacts at the technical level with other operators that are part of the Community of Independent States (CIS). One example is also the Regional Commonwealth in the field of communications (RCC - http://www.en.rcc.org.ru/index.php) This network is also important in the discussions related to internet governance and for the decisions in the ITU. . One question was raised, about what can ALAC do for the users. This is a key issue, because it is hard to motivate individuals and organizations to join ALAC if the only thing that they get is the opportunity to participate in policy development. Budget should be earmarked for initiatives that are useful for the internet users, like training. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations on the development of ICT, and specifically Internet, in Armenia. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have been staying only once overnight in a place without internet connection, and only once in a place that had internet connection but not WiFi. Please note that I have never stayed in fancy hotels, but rather in hostels or guesthouses, always in inexpensive places. This gave me the feeling of the ubiquity of the internet in Armenia. Besides internet, I witnessed the diffusion of mobile communications. It seems to me that everybody has a mobile phone. I have seen not only bus drivers talking on their mobiles (a plague that I see very often in my country), but also shepherds in the countryside with mobile phones. Considering that the next frontier of the internet is mobile devices, this is promising. Unfortunately, I failed to ask confirmation at the meeting with ALSes, but my impression is that Armenia took advantage of the progress in technology in the years of their independence, and moved straight to new technologies, when telcos in Europe and US (for sure this was the situation in Italy 20 years ago) were resisting change in order to protect and further exploit their investments in previous technologies. Another simple example of how the internet is affecting common behavior is the police. This is the only country where I have seen police cars displaying instead of the simple "Police" word in the local language the url of the police web site: www.police.am. It might be the case in other countries as well, but I have noticed it here for the first time. Best regards, Roberto

4 4

ICANN is sponsor of the Commonwealth Cybersecurity Forum 2013
by Victor Ndonnang April 25, 2013

April 25, 2013

Dear Colleagues and Friends, Just an update. The 3rd CTO CyberSecurity Forum starts tomorrow in Yaounde, Cameroon. ICANN will speak, showcase and outreach. Two ICANN VP are taking part to the event and I'm join them on the panel on Friday to tal about Internet resources and Cybersafety. More info on: http://www.cto.int/events/upcoming-events/commonwealth-cybersecurity-forum/… There was an pre-event workshop to assist countries to develop their Child Online Protection Strategy. Will send more updates. Best regards, Victor. -- Victor NDONNANG Secretary General **************************** Internet Society Cameroon Chapter "The Internet is for Everyone" Web:http://www.internetsociety.cm Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety.cm Twitter:http://twitter.com/Isoc_Cameroon

4 3

Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by At-Large Staff Feb. 25, 2013

Feb. 25, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21feb13-en.htm Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Beijing remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of major policy issues which are likely to be discussed during the Beijing Meeting. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 21 March at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 21 March at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * WHOIS related activities * The locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings * Protection of IGO and INGO Names * IDN ccNSO PDP * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * SSAC report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation Taxonomy The webinar will cover other topics which will be raised during or otherwise relevant to the Beijing Meeting. In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Commonwealth Cybersecurity Forum 2013 will be held from 22th to 26th April 2013 in Cameroon. ICANN to speak on "Internet resources and Cyber safety"
by Victor Ndonnang Feb. 23, 2013

Feb. 23, 2013

Dear Friends and Colleagues, The Commonwealth Cybersecurity Forum 2013 will take place in Yaounde, Cameroon from 22 -26 April 2013 on the theme "Bringing Safety, Resilience and Security into the Cyberspace". Speakers from ICANN will talk about "Internet resources and Cyber Safety" and "Domain name management as a way to ensure safety in Cyberspace". Registration and more information on: http://www.cto.int/events/upcoming-events/commonwealth-cybersecurity-forum/ Hope to welcome ICANN Speakers in Yaounde for the forum and some outreach activities. Best regards, Victor Ndonnang. -- Victor NDONNANG Internet Governance Specialist Internet Society Next Generation Leader Laureate 2012 Secretary General ISOC Cameroon Chapter B.P. 8149 Yaounde, Cameroon Tel. +237 22 08 37 14 Mobile: +237 77 75 07 24 E-mail: ndonnang(a)isoc-cameroon.org Skype ID: ndonnang Web Site: http://www.isoc-cameroon.org Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ndonnang Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ndonnang

1 0

Follow up on Thursday's call
by Roberto Gaetano Dec. 21, 2012

Dec. 21, 2012

Folks, We spoke about outreach opportunities. Would it be worth compiling a calendar of the events that we could attend (somebody mentioned the national IGFs, for instance)? Also, it would be good to discuss ideas on how and where to address our outreach efforts. Which communities, organizations, media, are we targeting? Years ago I have proposed to ALAC a tight collaboration with ccTLD operators, in particular in the countries where the ccTLDs are tightly connected with the users. This did work out to some extent (for instance, we had a ccTLD operator joining ALAC) but did not turn out in a permanent collaboration, except for the good work of our liaisons. I wonder whether there is more we can do in this direction. Actually, collaboration should not be limited to ccTLDs. Do we have (or can we establish) relationships with geographic TLD applicants or other community-related TLDs to bring the voice of the user community also through ALAC? I am sure that in many cases we do, maybe it could be good to have a map of these relationships to see where there is still work to do. As I mentioned during the call, ALAC had the objective of having (at least) one ALS in every country. If this is still an objective, can we draw a map of what are the areas of the world where we lack presence? I am not neglecting the efforts of improving our presence where we are already there, by involving different parts of the (potential) At-Large community, but just wondering where our strategic priorities are. I am under the impression that, once we have a foot in some place (i.e. an ALS in one country), this ALS should be tasked with outreach within the country. At Large Structures, the way we define them, have probably a good sense of the reality of the country where they operate, and can suggest and even execute outreach activities. In simple words, while we are for the time being the focal point on outreach, a clear message we need ot give to the whole organization is that outreach cannot be delegated to few individuals, but that it has to be the task of the whole community. We can discuss methodologies and techniques, but then all ALSes have to take active part in recruiting new members. Last but not least, media. Back to the famous At Large elections of 2000, at least in Europe a huge role has been played by the media. Germany has been the most active country, with Der Spiegel (if I remember correctly) publishing articles that resulted in a participation in the election that was by far the highest in the region. Can we think of a way of involving media in support of the growth of ALAC? For instance, there is a lot of discussion right now about the multistakeholder model, in particular in relation to the WCIT discussions and results. Can we push the idea that a real multistakeholder model needs wide participation from the users to be successful? Cheers, Roberto

3 3