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