Whatever the decision, I support the idea of a get-together, and can offer free conference space for about 100 at Consumers Union in Yonkers. It's about 25 mins. from Manhattan. Lodging can be a little pricey but if people are willing to stay at an extended-stay Marriott in Tarrytown instead of the big city the prices are a little more reasonable. We even have catering... A bit ahead of the discussion at the moment, but something to keep in mind. Beau ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sun 10/7/2007 6:41 AM To: Jean Armour Polly Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] At-Large Summit update Jean Armour Polly wrote:
To me, the idea of an Internet User's "Summit" is not really the right idea in these times. The reason is that there is room for only a few at a summit. The Internet allows every user a seat at the table--everyone is a publisher--everyone has a blog--everyone is a video producer-- so everyone must be a summit attendee-- and that is the energy we should think how to engage. I disagree for a number of reasons:
1) There' s more than a little rich-world arrogance in the assertion that everyone is a publisher. Heck, "everyone" doesn't have a phone yet and certainly "everyone" does not have good Internet connections or even freedom of expression. The subset of computer users who already have something to say on ICANN issues, let alone the knowledge of how to self-publish those views, is I daresay a tiny fraction of the public whose views the At-Large framework was designed to engage. 2) It takes a hardcore computer geek (or a devious cost cutter) to assert that virtual conversations can completely take the place of looking someone in the eye. The fact that we can't bring everyone together is not an excuse to refuse to bring anyone together. If ICANN itself believed so much in the power of virtual communications, it wouldn't see the value in holding three in-person meetings a year. And if ICANN's various constituencies believed in the absolute power of virtual communications, they wouldn't be attending these meetings at their own expense. Given the amount of politics involved in ICANN, non-verbal communications is most certainly in play -- if we ignore that, we jeopardize our place at the table. 3) Like it or not, the At-Large structure is based on a pyramid-type framework that depends on a representative system through ALSs. As far as I know there is only one region -- not coincidentally one of the rich-world regions -- that even accommodates individuals unassociated with an ALS. I am not interested in debating the merits of previously-discarded models of public participation; I merely submit that the Summit is completely consistent with the model that exists. Indeed, the Summit intended to be a tool to improve the ability of ALSs to inform their members and advise on policy -- a fulfillment of the ideals behind which the current At-Large infrastructure was created. 4) Let's be honest -- the specific issues ICANN grapples with are beyond the grasp or interest of most people. Most of those who do care, as Beau has suggested, do so at a higher level -- they want to see spam reduced but have no idea if ICANN even has a role in spam eradication (let alone have any policy advice for it or even know what ICANN is). The ALSs that have stepped forward have indicated an interest in being informed and making policy. Volunteering as an At-Large participant (that is, without the kind of vested interests held by ICANN's other constituencies) doesn't quite have the same public-service profile as giving your time to Oxfam, raising funds to cure a disease, or service in your local renter's association. One can assert that the whole world is invited to ICANN, but it takes a special kind of oblivion to believe that the masses will swarm to participate just as soon as we find a way to let them. Chances are that most people who have found personal interest in ICANN issues has already found a way -- and maybe a constituency or ALS through which -- to express them.
It's pretty clear to me that ICANN listens as much to any body of individual users as much as it listens to whatever ALAC has to say. In fact, an outside "constituency" may even have MORE influence than ALAC/At Large does-- witness the pressure put on ICANN to drop negotiations with .XXX when the US Department of Commerce got all those emails from the Christian right. And yet it was the DOC -- not ICANN itself -- that received the complaints. It was the DOC, not the Christian groups directly, that put pressure on ICANN. Indeed, you've helped prove my point that ICANN's is certainly NOT not a direct participation model.
In any case, I readily admit that every other constituency in ICANN appears to hold more sway than ALAC at the current time; the Summit is a partial attempt to repair that situation.
So... what I am saying is that maybe we should be looking at a very loose , lightweight *something else*-- Internet users union? That could quickly coalesce around certain issues-- and these might be ICANN issues or they might be issues outside of ICANN-- but they are Internet user issues. Maybe we could call these groups "Internet Societies". And maybe they could have chapters in many countries, states and provinces. And maybe some of those "Internet Societies" might be have an interest in becoming ALSs.
That's a really good idea. I wonder why nobody has thought of that before.
What is possibly different about what I'm saying is that hierarchical is dead You may assert that all you want, assertions do not make it so. The audience ICANN wants to reach goes far beyond those with the skill to blog or even an account on (or desire to use or even awareness of) Facebook.
we need to go where those users are (search engines, portals, facebook, youtube...) and engage them, give them a voice, and don't make them go through a series of hierarchical hoops to be heard. At last we agree on something. Giving the public a voice does indeed require active engagement. But that engagement will only come from grassroots organizations, or as you call them the " hierarchical hoops". Expecting informed opinion from the public without participation from those intermediaries is wishful thinking at best.
- Evan PS: If you ask any person to identify themselves, they'll use their name, their nationality, maybe religion, profession, language or culture. Nobody identifies themselves as an "Internet User" any more than they identify themselves as a "Ford driver"; it happens, but only from the deeply enthusiastic. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org *** Scanned