Dear Evan , If I may, I wish to echo your words. You´ve able to translate the feeling of "other" regions. For us, in Latin-America, is very difficult to "take risks" to write in the lists, for fear of been wrong and be attack with emails telling rude thinks, like "you do not know how things are." And that kind of e-mail are those who are frequently in the list when someone does not like what the other said. Whit this scenario is difficult to excite the participating ALS! (because you never know if you can or know fend off attacks). The participating as volunteers, using hours and hours of our day, reading lots of e-mail in English, should be positive and encourage us to participate, but unfortunately it is not, this looks like a "war of egos". Furthermore, becouse of our Latin education, Nor could we discuss and be as direct with whom we do not know, but you can be sure we read all the e-mail and discuss them by skype or MSN, only that many times we decided that not worth getting into that "war". Sincerely, Herlein Sylvia Leite - LACRALO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Estimado Evan, Si me permites, quiero hacer mias todas tus palabras. Has sabido traducir el sentimiento de las "OTRAS" regiones. Para nosotros de América-latina es muy dificil "arriesgarnos" a escribir en las listas, por miedo a que equivicarnos y a que nos bombardeen con -emails groseros diciéndonos "que no sabemos como son las cosas". Y ese tipo de e-mail son los que se ven con MUCHA frecuencia en la lista cuando a alguien no le gusta lo que el otro dijo. Es dificil ante este panorama entusiasmar a que las ALSs participen!! (porque uno nunca sabe si podrá o sabrá defenderse de los ataques). El participar como voluntarios, utilizando horas y horas de nuestro día, leyendo gran cantidad de e-mail en ingles, debería ser algo positivo y que nos incentivara a participar, pero lamentablemente no lo es, porque parece una "guerra de egos". Por otro lado, por nuestra educación latina, nos es dificil ponernos a discutir y ser tan directos con quien no conocemos; aunque pueden estar seguros de que leemos todos los e-mail y los comentamos por skype o MSN, solo que muchas veces decidimos que no vale la pena entrar en esa "guerra". Sinceramente, Sylvia Herlein Leite - LACRALO -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Evan Leibovitch Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de setembro de 2009 18:33 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding Karl Auerbach wrote:
I too do not understand why most of the discussion that occurs on this mailing list come from North America and Europe. It is not surprising that so many Americans within ICANN just don't grasp what they're dealing with in attempts to empower the global user community. What comes naturally to ICANN old-timers (mostly Europeans and North Americans) is, literally, quite foreign to the very people ICANN is trying to attract.
As Danny time after time after time rails against the perceived lack of communications between ALS and RALO, or between ALS and ALS members, he shows total ignorance of what could be a cultural deference to leadership, or a difficulty to translate complex technical concepts well beyond ICANN's official list of languages. There is a significant number of people in the global community who find the direct and often personal tone of email used by .... well, Europeans and North Americans ... to be at worst highly offensive and at least highly intimidating. Many refuse to take their first steps into our forums, knowing that if they say the "wrong" thing they'll be at the receiving end of a nastygram the likes of which are miles beyond the kind of discourse they're ready to have. There's an assumption in the kinds of posts that Danny, Milton and Robyn (and many others, including myself on occasion) have been making, that the audience for these messages have thick virtual skins and are supposed to appreciate direct (to the point of crude) speech. That assumption is a mistake, which I believe is directly attributable for the limits on the discussion you see. Not every culture empowers individuals or encourages free thought (let alone free speech). In some cultures politeness and respect is the norm, and rudeness is just shunned as vulgar and/or uneducated. Not all NGOs operate in the communications style of what is generally known as "civil society" (which more often than not is quite uncivil). And ... guess what ... some people, and some cultures, simply communicate better face to face, where eye contact and tone of voice matter ... just imagine!! What this means, of course, is that those who bemoan the lack of participation actually help to cause it by belittling those who are already here. They complain that the system is useless as they actively work to _make_ it useless. Moaning incessantly about what hasn't been done but withholding even faint praise for what has been done. "No good deed goes unpunished" and all that... But it's not just At-Large's own self-destructive elements. There is also much .. for lack of a better term .. "cultural imperialism" reeking from the way ICANN itself does things. Hasn't it ever bothered anyone that, despite all the exotic locales ICANN meets in, it never lifts a finger to assist local RALOs to engage in ALS recruitment at these meetings? Does it not bother anyone that there's not a single ALS from Russia? Are the existing volunteers supposed to burn their own cash to make this happen? The At-Large Community, for all its newly-perceived maturity, is still treated as an incapable offspring. ICANN still distrusts the grassroots enough to require that one-third of ALAC must be parachuted in. (During the ALAC Review there were proposals to *increase* proportion of unelected reps, but never did I see any proposals to make ALAC all-elected taken seriously.) ALAC has _zero_ discretionary spending of its own, every dollar it gets -- whether for travel or outreach or research -- is accomplished through a process that's effectively just refined begging. When ICANN adds staff on our behalf it doesn't ask what *we* need staff to help with, those decisions are made on our behalf. And don't even get me started on translation policies. If you want to dig even deeper, let's not forget the basic difficulties presented by ICANN's schizophrenic public-involvement face... if someone from the "public" wants to get involved and doesn't know anything about ICANN do they enter through At-Large, NCUC, or Kieren's office? The lines and reasons that distinguish one from the others are vague and confusing, especially to those not yet versed in ICANN culture. For anyone with difficulty in English, forget it. But dealing with ICANN's cultural impediments is a different and longer-term issue. Being more welcoming is something we can do for ourselves.
It may well be that other areas and other people are aggregating, discussing, debating, and acting outside of the A-R-A (ALAC-RALO-ALS) mechanism. I would not find that surprising.
I was saddened to read the exchange on "civility" being held over at the Ombudsman's blog (https://omblog.icann.org/?p=192). On one side are Frank and Kieren arguing that codes of conduct must be more strictly applied; on the other Milton, Robyn and Avri assert that arbitrary bounds of civil behaviour are unfair and stifle expression. Neither side has it right. Treating this as a regulatory matter (i.e., codes of conduct) only encourages disobedience from those who already see themselves as repressed. And those who defend the right to be abusive just don't get that their style is severely *narrowing* their intended audience. People need to realize that being civil and positive in ICANN-related conversation isn't just a good idea because of codes of conduct. Being civil, polite and positive is an act of inclusion and welcoming. Maybe it is more difficult to make a polite and assertive ALAC argument, just as it's harder to tell a good clean joke. But the effort is not just worthwhile, it's critical. Being "mad as hell [...]" may work personally for some, and I'll agree that in some circumstances it may even be the preferred style to enact change. But not everyone works that way, or -- more importantly -- is willing to work with those who work that way. Is your insistence on a certain style worth alienating scores of others who may -- to you -- be too meek or slow to act, but each deserve as much of a seat at the table as you? - Evan Disclaimer: As a white male North American, I am likely not the best observer of cultural imperialism on this list. But, as someone who has had the fortune to travel extensively (pre-ICANN) and handle negotiations in many different locales, I hope my perspective may be useful.