It has been about a month since the ICANN Board announced that the At-Large Community will be permitted to appoint a director to the Board, so one would have thought that there would have been an immediate flurry of on-line discussion in all of the regions in order to quickly turn this long-held dream of at-large representation into a reality. But there are no online discussions on this topic on the African list, nor on the European list, nor on the Latin American list nor on the Asia-Pacific list. It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions. These orgs obviously don't care about board-level representation and obviously don't care about the real at-large community -- they are pretenders; they can't be bothered to "do" anything other than to hold out their hands in anticipation of travel vouchers. Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities. The whole process is a sham and always has been.
This is painfully true. Conference and Workshop tourism? No wonder the situation has not improved. Sad eh? Yassin
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:22:21 -0700 From: dannyyounger@yahoo.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Travel Funding
It has been about a month since the ICANN Board announced that the At-Large Community will be permitted to appoint a director to the Board, so one would have thought that there would have been an immediate flurry of on-line discussion in all of the regions in order to quickly turn this long-held dream of at-large representation into a reality.
But there are no online discussions on this topic on the African list, nor on the European list, nor on the Latin American list nor on the Asia-Pacific list. It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions.
These orgs obviously don't care about board-level representation and obviously don't care about the real at-large community -- they are pretenders; they can't be bothered to "do" anything other than to hold out their hands in anticipation of travel vouchers.
Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities.
The whole process is a sham and always has been.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions.
Oh yes. We are tourists. We have heard that a zillion times before. Be aware though that ALSes do not travel regularly on ICANN budget. And when they do, they work from 7am to 8pm pro bono. Like ALAC members and RALO chairs BTW. We even have ALSes travelling on their own budget.
Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities.
Do you have any evidence of that ? Did you check each ALSes mailing lists, evetn the closed ones, attend their local meetings, etc ?
The whole process is a sham and always has been.
We know your opinion, Danny. You have voiced it time and time again. Can we now use these volunteers' time and bandwidth for something more useful than bashing and demotivating them ? Thank you. Patrick
Patrick, you've declared your intent to be a registry operator (.sport), yet you see no conflict of interest in claiming to represent the at-large? I'm sure that you'll put in lots of hours in defense of a commercial effort and likely won't partake of tourism to the same degree as the others. With regard to evidence, you are as capable of using Google as anyone. Feel free to cite the hundreds of ALS citations pointing to this historic announcement. Frankly, I don't see how ALS representatives could be any more demotivated than they are at the moment -- they've done next to nothing for the at-large so far, and I fully expect the trend to continue. It's no wonder that the Board ignores all the ALAC statements. --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Funding To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 9:12 AM On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions.
Oh yes. We are tourists. We have heard that a zillion times before. Be aware though that ALSes do not travel regularly on ICANN budget. And when they do, they work from 7am to 8pm pro bono. Like ALAC members and RALO chairs BTW. We even have ALSes travelling on their own budget.
Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities.
Do you have any evidence of that ? Did you check each ALSes mailing lists, evetn the closed ones, attend their local meetings, etc ?
The whole process is a sham and always has been.
We know your opinion, Danny. You have voiced it time and time again. Can we now use these volunteers' time and bandwidth for something more useful than bashing and demotivating them ?
Thank you.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I second that (and I'm not intending to be a registry operator right now). Best from .br, Omar
Oh yes. We are tourists. We have heard that a zillion times before. Be aware though that ALSes do not travel regularly on ICANN budget. And when they do, they work from 7am to 8pm pro bono. Like ALAC members and RALO chairs BTW. We even have ALSes travelling on their own budget.
Oh, and lets add that some of us have to take "leave without pay" from our normal jobs so have NOBODY paying us to do this. Also, while away, we have to keep up with our normal jobs, whether paid to do so or not, so in addition to spending until 8:00+ pm, we then have to go to our hotel rooms and spend several hours making sure everything is happening alright at work/home. Danny, I remember chatting with you in LA and you told me that you only had (at that time) two weeks off a year for holidays so are very careful of not going to too many ICANN junkets as it would take time away from your family and your holiday time with them. WOW! That's something that some of us do all the time and don't get paid for it and it takes us away from our families - but we do it. And we aren't independantly wealthy (at least I'm not). Danny was also invited to go to Mexico to do one of his excellent presentations there and he declined. Well, I guess its easy to moan and complain but if you aren't willing to at least TRY and put in the time to doing something productive rather than just whining... Well, then it becomes something other than a debate about travel support. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Omar Kaminski Sent: Fri 9/25/2009 10:08 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Funding I second that (and I'm not intending to be a registry operator right now). Best from .br, Omar
Oh yes. We are tourists. We have heard that a zillion times before. Be aware though that ALSes do not travel regularly on ICANN budget. And when they do, they work from 7am to 8pm pro bono. Like ALAC members and RALO chairs BTW. We even have ALSes travelling on their own budget.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT), Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Patrick, you've declared your intent to be a registry operator (.sport), yet you see no conflict of interest in claiming to represent the at-large?
I think I answered this several times. This is a not-for-profit, community-based *project* I lead under in a different context than my ALAC duties. Actually, there is a lot of common ground between the ALAC values and the ones of my project. If and when I feel there would be a conflict of interest, be reassured I would resign. The difference between me and many others inside the ICANN community is that my project is public.
With regard to evidence, you are as capable of using Google as anyone. Feel free to cite the hundreds of ALS citations pointing to this historic announcement.
So, if it is not indexed by google it means no discussion is happening ? This sounds like poor evidence.
It's no wonder that the Board ignores all the ALAC statements.
Not so. The latest evidence is that the upcoming DAG V3 will probably not include a series of controversial proposals from the IRT, which ALAC opposed in its statements, both in ALAC's own and in the joint ALAC/NCUC ones. Patrick
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:
Frankly, I don't see how ALS representatives could be any more demotivated than they are at the moment -- they've done next to nothing for the at-large so far, and I fully expect the trend to continue.
This trend represents and continues a long well established ICANN tradition.
It's no wonder that the Board ignores all the ALAC statements.
another long well established ICANN tradition. regards joe baptista
--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Funding To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 9:12 AM On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions.
Oh yes. We are tourists. We have heard that a zillion times before. Be aware though that ALSes do not travel regularly on ICANN budget. And when they do, they work from 7am to 8pm pro bono. Like ALAC members and RALO chairs BTW. We even have ALSes travelling on their own budget.
Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities.
Do you have any evidence of that ? Did you check each ALSes mailing lists, evetn the closed ones, attend their local meetings, etc ?
The whole process is a sham and always has been.
We know your opinion, Danny. You have voiced it time and time again. Can we now use these volunteers' time and bandwidth for something more useful than bashing and demotivating them ?
Thank you.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
We know your opinion, Danny. You have voiced it time and time again. Can we now use these volunteers' time and bandwidth for something more useful than bashing and demotivating them ?
Patrick: you, and here, are smart enough to know how to use an email filter. For those who don't there are nice web tutorials on how to do this for Thunderbird: http://opensourcearticles.com/thunderbird_15/english/part_07 Outlook: http://www.uh.edu/infotech/php/template.php?nonsvc_id=247 Someone's merely possessing free speech and a soapbox does not obligate you to listen to them. If you believe that anyone on this list has been repeatedly sending messages that provide no value except to demoralize and scold, you have a duty to your own sanity to filter those messages. - Evan
Evan appears to be keen to take a circle-the-wagons and plug-your-ears approach. God forbid that anyone should criticize the obvious failure of ALS reps to communicate with their respective organizations. Maybe we should just organize another Summit so that we can finally hear from 80% of the ALSs that otherwise have nothing to say on any topic. Of course, Evan is right. Just apply your filters to anyone that disagrees with Evan and all will be well in ALAC-land. --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Funding To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 10:14 AM Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
We know your opinion, Danny. You have voiced it time and time again. Can we now use these volunteers' time and bandwidth for something more useful than bashing and demotivating them ?
Patrick: you, and here, are smart enough to know how to use an email filter. For those who don't there are nice web tutorials on how to do this for Thunderbird: http://opensourcearticles.com/thunderbird_15/english/part_07 Outlook: http://www.uh.edu/infotech/php/template.php?nonsvc_id=247
Someone's merely possessing free speech and a soapbox does not obligate you to listen to them. If you believe that anyone on this list has been repeatedly sending messages that provide no value except to demoralize and scold, you have a duty to your own sanity to filter those messages.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Danny Younger wrote:
Maybe we should just organize another Summit so that we can finally hear from 80% of the ALSs that otherwise have nothing to say on any topic. It is significant that the Summit -- a high point at which policy was discussed and delivered, ALSs both educated and were educated, and At-Large matured in realtime before the rest of ICANN -- was the one forum in which Danny chose not to paricipate.
- Evan
On 09/25/2009 05:22 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
It has been about a month since the ICANN Board announced that the At-Large Community will be permitted to appoint a director to the Board, ... The whole process is a sham and always has been.
There are a couple of ways to look at it. One is that we, the community of internet users, were promised a controlling set of seats on ICANN's board of directors as part of the initial promises of ICANN when it was being created. Although this is the foundation for my approach, it is an approach that generates fear and thus resistance by those who either oppose public participation or who fear fast change. Then there is the incremental method. Huge granite slabs in Yosemite are split from the cliffs by the year-by-year action of water freezing into ice in the cracks - big change accomplished a tiny, almost imperceptible, bit at a time. In our ALAC review working group we to a mid-ground, but one towards the incremental end, by recommending two fully empowered and voting directors. ICANN's board reduced that to one. That one is a worthy goal. It's not a sham. I too do not understand why most of the discussion that occurs on this mailing list come from North America and Europe. 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. --karl--
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.
I loved reading this Evan! I´m still coming from "Occidental Culture", but even for me sometimes is hard to explain some differencies.. specially with (North) American "Individualistic Style", in desition making. Just an example: For my ALS (with 4 members reading the list every day), what Danny takes 3 seconds between reading a mail or a news report, breathing, reacting and typing the answer, for us takes a Deliberating process (and I´m sure it´s similar in that Port of Spain´s Pizza Hut) that may occurr online but sometimes doesn´t, because is not so easy to get on a fair grownd of meanings or interpretations from 15.000kmts far away from the desitions, on your second language (or for Caribbean ALSs that are english speakers but find that many LA members communicate informally first on Spanish). Thanks Again Evan. Regards, Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:33:26 -0400 From: evan@telly.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [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.
_________________________________________________________________
You said it and you said it well. Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
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.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Brilliant! Sent from my iPhone On 25/09/2009, at 5:33 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
<evan.vcf> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I do agree - we in North America and Europe lead the way in rudeness. Look at our parliaments. On the other hand we did colonize most of the world. Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off. Then again - raw debate is not for everyone. regards joe baptista On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
Joe Baptista wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off.
I really disagree with the oversimplification above, and suggest it indicates you really didn't get the point of my original message. Everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn. - Evan
At 26/09/2009 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off.
I really disagree with the oversimplification above, and suggest it indicates you really didn't get the point of my original message.
Pretty close to what I was going to reply. Our job in life is NOT to change all other cultures into ours (whoever the "our" is). While there may be strengths in any given culture in a specific situation, I think that it is *WAY* beyond the scope and mission of ICANN to try to set standards on cultures. Alan
Once again thanks alan and evan. Sent from BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:39:07 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding At 26/09/2009 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off.
I really disagree with the oversimplification above, and suggest it indicates you really didn't get the point of my original message.
Pretty close to what I was going to reply. Our job in life is NOT to change all other cultures into ours (whoever the "our" is). While there may be strengths in any given culture in a specific situation, I think that it is *WAY* beyond the scope and mission of ICANN to try to set standards on cultures. Alan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I got your point. And agree with it. But your insights will not alter the cultural differences discussed here. North Americans and Europeans are not going to change their ways because of a few cultural insights or complaints. Much simpler for those cultures to develop a thick skinned approach to debate. What I see here from those "other" cultures in supporting these arguments amounts to a lack of confidence in public debate. That is just one interpretation out of many - right or wrong. It can just as easily be argued that we here in North America and Europe need sensitivity training. Thats not going to happen because we don't really see anything wrong with our ways. Thats why we can easily interpret the failure of other cultures to debate as a lack of confidence. In fact based on the discussions here to date that's seem to be exactly what the problem is. This is a bit like English instruction. Most cultures in the world train their children in English because English is the language of trade and it is also the dominant language on this planet. In the same way other cultures may very well wish to train their children in our debate style and face the obvious fact which is that we in North America and Europe are rude assholes and their children should have the tools, confidence and education to deal with that. cheers joe baptista On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off.
I really disagree with the oversimplification above, and suggest it indicates you really didn't get the point of my original message.
Everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
Joe Baptista wrote:
I got your point. And agree with it. But your insights will not alter the cultural differences discussed here. North Americans and Europeans are not going to change their ways because of a few cultural insights or complaints.
Much simpler for those cultures to develop a thick skinned approach to debate.
ICANN is not, on its own, going to solve the global cultural gaps between global cultures. Requiring people to get used to rudeness and personal attack simply in order to usefully participate here is, to me, the status quo... and it is unacceptable. It simply results in people staying away. One fundamental principle of At-Large -- which, I personally find differentiates it from NCUC -- is that ICANN needs the ALSs more than the ALSs need ICANN. At-Large is not designed to be filled with Internet experts and advocates, that does not accurately represent the public at large. The public, generally, knows little that ICANN exists and even less how it works. So for At-Large to really reach its potential, it needs to convince members of the public to care enough to get involved. And, globally, you don't convince people to participate in what you're doing by forcing them to totally change their ways of communications to suit you. Folks like Karl and Danny and Joe and Milton will forever hover around ICANN, regardless of what methods it uses to relate to the public. Whether or not there are direct public Board elections, or At-Large as we know it, or an Office of Public Participation, or something else, they'll be here. ICANN need do *nothing* to solicit their advice, it'll come anyway. The challenge for ICANN, and the reason I think that the design of At-Large is ingenious, is that ICANN knows that hearing from the unsolicited "experts" is not nearly enough; it must attract the voice of those who are otherwise disinterested. Danny frequently complains that At-Large does this by bribing people with travel -- the original reason for this thread. To me, the act of transporting At-Large people to each ICANN meeting is the bare minimum that ICANN must do to understand the needs and problems of the Internet-using public who are not already Internet governance groupies. That these people get -- maybe -- a half-day of tourism (out of nine days of airport queues and hotel conference rooms) is hardly compensation for the huge amount of work involved and the benefit ICANN derives. And, as many have put forward, funding travel but starving research and outreach is not a recipe for success. But that's enough amateur anthropology. I need to take my own advice, that conversations here need to be forward thinking and positive. Is there anything here that we in At-Large can do to address this? Every option I can think of has drawbacks, but at least offers some improvement over the status quo. One possible option is having dual At-Large mailing lists, along with a small group of "ambassadors" who copy ideas and opinions between them in a style appropriate for the target audience. One list would have an extremely low tolerance for aggressive speech and personal attack, and another would have no limits at all (except slander laws). Those who want unfettered free speech would have it, along with an audience that is comfortable with it. And those who want a gentler, friendlier area would also have it, with small committee of admins rejecting inappropriate posts and a published set of rejection criteria. I suspect that some (myself included) may be comfortable with both lists, but most would gravitate to one or the other. If Joe is right, and some North American and European speakers cannot control their aggression, they will still have their outlet -- but not all who wish to participate in ICANN will be required to be exposed to it. Perhaps there are other solutions people may want to offer to address some of the other cultural challenges. Perhaps, to address the shyness of people in talking to strangers, we should encourage more individual participants to post introductions to themselves at the ICANN website. The ICANNWiki site personal profiles seems to look more like professional resumes; I am thinking of something on a more personal level -- an introduction that may make people more confortable in starting a conversation with you. I will be the first to admit that these proposals have flaws, but I cannot myself think of a different solution that will preserve free speech while offering a sheltered area to those who are uncomfortable with the, shall we say,"freeist" speech. If others have ideas I would really like to hear them. The small but important goal here is to encourage the maximum possible people and groups to engage within ICANN in a way they find comfortable. Even the Internet governance groupies. :-) - Evan
Hi Evan I appreciate the +ve direction this is taking. Will think on your suggestions and revert ASAP Jacqueline Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:03:02 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding Joe Baptista wrote:
I got your point. And agree with it. But your insights will not alter the cultural differences discussed here. North Americans and Europeans are not going to change their ways because of a few cultural insights or complaints.
Much simpler for those cultures to develop a thick skinned approach to debate.
ICANN is not, on its own, going to solve the global cultural gaps between global cultures. Requiring people to get used to rudeness and personal attack simply in order to usefully participate here is, to me, the status quo... and it is unacceptable. It simply results in people staying away. One fundamental principle of At-Large -- which, I personally find differentiates it from NCUC -- is that ICANN needs the ALSs more than the ALSs need ICANN. At-Large is not designed to be filled with Internet experts and advocates, that does not accurately represent the public at large. The public, generally, knows little that ICANN exists and even less how it works. So for At-Large to really reach its potential, it needs to convince members of the public to care enough to get involved. And, globally, you don't convince people to participate in what you're doing by forcing them to totally change their ways of communications to suit you. Folks like Karl and Danny and Joe and Milton will forever hover around ICANN, regardless of what methods it uses to relate to the public. Whether or not there are direct public Board elections, or At-Large as we know it, or an Office of Public Participation, or something else, they'll be here. ICANN need do *nothing* to solicit their advice, it'll come anyway. The challenge for ICANN, and the reason I think that the design of At-Large is ingenious, is that ICANN knows that hearing from the unsolicited "experts" is not nearly enough; it must attract the voice of those who are otherwise disinterested. Danny frequently complains that At-Large does this by bribing people with travel -- the original reason for this thread. To me, the act of transporting At-Large people to each ICANN meeting is the bare minimum that ICANN must do to understand the needs and problems of the Internet-using public who are not already Internet governance groupies. That these people get -- maybe -- a half-day of tourism (out of nine days of airport queues and hotel conference rooms) is hardly compensation for the huge amount of work involved and the benefit ICANN derives. And, as many have put forward, funding travel but starving research and outreach is not a recipe for success. But that's enough amateur anthropology. I need to take my own advice, that conversations here need to be forward thinking and positive. Is there anything here that we in At-Large can do to address this? Every option I can think of has drawbacks, but at least offers some improvement over the status quo. One possible option is having dual At-Large mailing lists, along with a small group of "ambassadors" who copy ideas and opinions between them in a style appropriate for the target audience. One list would have an extremely low tolerance for aggressive speech and personal attack, and another would have no limits at all (except slander laws). Those who want unfettered free speech would have it, along with an audience that is comfortable with it. And those who want a gentler, friendlier area would also have it, with small committee of admins rejecting inappropriate posts and a published set of rejection criteria. I suspect that some (myself included) may be comfortable with both lists, but most would gravitate to one or the other. If Joe is right, and some North American and European speakers cannot control their aggression, they will still have their outlet -- but not all who wish to participate in ICANN will be required to be exposed to it. Perhaps there are other solutions people may want to offer to address some of the other cultural challenges. Perhaps, to address the shyness of people in talking to strangers, we should encourage more individual participants to post introductions to themselves at the ICANN website. The ICANNWiki site personal profiles seems to look more like professional resumes; I am thinking of something on a more personal level -- an introduction that may make people more confortable in starting a conversation with you. I will be the first to admit that these proposals have flaws, but I cannot myself think of a different solution that will preserve free speech while offering a sheltered area to those who are uncomfortable with the, shall we say,"freeist" speech. If others have ideas I would really like to hear them. The small but important goal here is to encourage the maximum possible people and groups to engage within ICANN in a way they find comfortable. Even the Internet governance groupies. :-) - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The point that i was raising regarding cultural difference wasn't focused in this, but in other aspect which is individualism. I believe that i'm prepared to personal rudeness and latins all are (if any of you saw lacralo list between february and july would easily certify this). And also studied english since i was a kid.. As many ALS reps from my region. It makes things difficult but not impossible (doesn't mean that translations are not necessary, because are for the general public). The point is that 'free speech' is not the same when you represent an organization than when you are yourself alone. Developing consensus and making statements is harder (and much more valuable, at least is what ICANN seems to be looking for) that vomiting persona thoughts to the list. If American style is Danny's (individual who only represents himself) could be valuable but is one voice. And we need to hear and take in account to much more than that.. Sent from BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:03:02 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding Joe Baptista wrote:
I got your point. And agree with it. But your insights will not alter the cultural differences discussed here. North Americans and Europeans are not going to change their ways because of a few cultural insights or complaints.
Much simpler for those cultures to develop a thick skinned approach to debate.
ICANN is not, on its own, going to solve the global cultural gaps between global cultures. Requiring people to get used to rudeness and personal attack simply in order to usefully participate here is, to me, the status quo... and it is unacceptable. It simply results in people staying away. One fundamental principle of At-Large -- which, I personally find differentiates it from NCUC -- is that ICANN needs the ALSs more than the ALSs need ICANN. At-Large is not designed to be filled with Internet experts and advocates, that does not accurately represent the public at large. The public, generally, knows little that ICANN exists and even less how it works. So for At-Large to really reach its potential, it needs to convince members of the public to care enough to get involved. And, globally, you don't convince people to participate in what you're doing by forcing them to totally change their ways of communications to suit you. Folks like Karl and Danny and Joe and Milton will forever hover around ICANN, regardless of what methods it uses to relate to the public. Whether or not there are direct public Board elections, or At-Large as we know it, or an Office of Public Participation, or something else, they'll be here. ICANN need do *nothing* to solicit their advice, it'll come anyway. The challenge for ICANN, and the reason I think that the design of At-Large is ingenious, is that ICANN knows that hearing from the unsolicited "experts" is not nearly enough; it must attract the voice of those who are otherwise disinterested. Danny frequently complains that At-Large does this by bribing people with travel -- the original reason for this thread. To me, the act of transporting At-Large people to each ICANN meeting is the bare minimum that ICANN must do to understand the needs and problems of the Internet-using public who are not already Internet governance groupies. That these people get -- maybe -- a half-day of tourism (out of nine days of airport queues and hotel conference rooms) is hardly compensation for the huge amount of work involved and the benefit ICANN derives. And, as many have put forward, funding travel but starving research and outreach is not a recipe for success. But that's enough amateur anthropology. I need to take my own advice, that conversations here need to be forward thinking and positive. Is there anything here that we in At-Large can do to address this? Every option I can think of has drawbacks, but at least offers some improvement over the status quo. One possible option is having dual At-Large mailing lists, along with a small group of "ambassadors" who copy ideas and opinions between them in a style appropriate for the target audience. One list would have an extremely low tolerance for aggressive speech and personal attack, and another would have no limits at all (except slander laws). Those who want unfettered free speech would have it, along with an audience that is comfortable with it. And those who want a gentler, friendlier area would also have it, with small committee of admins rejecting inappropriate posts and a published set of rejection criteria. I suspect that some (myself included) may be comfortable with both lists, but most would gravitate to one or the other. If Joe is right, and some North American and European speakers cannot control their aggression, they will still have their outlet -- but not all who wish to participate in ICANN will be required to be exposed to it. Perhaps there are other solutions people may want to offer to address some of the other cultural challenges. Perhaps, to address the shyness of people in talking to strangers, we should encourage more individual participants to post introductions to themselves at the ICANN website. The ICANNWiki site personal profiles seems to look more like professional resumes; I am thinking of something on a more personal level -- an introduction that may make people more confortable in starting a conversation with you. I will be the first to admit that these proposals have flaws, but I cannot myself think of a different solution that will preserve free speech while offering a sheltered area to those who are uncomfortable with the, shall we say,"freeist" speech. If others have ideas I would really like to hear them. The small but important goal here is to encourage the maximum possible people and groups to engage within ICANN in a way they find comfortable. Even the Internet governance groupies. :-) - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Yeah -I get it. North Americans aren't going to change so everyone else has to change (grow "thick skins") instead. Thanks for the welcome and understanding. These responses really let me see the cultural bias in all its glory and WHY it's so difficult to get new ppl involved. Jacqueline Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Baptista <baptista@publicroot.org> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:17:30 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding I got your point. And agree with it. But your insights will not alter the cultural differences discussed here. North Americans and Europeans are not going to change their ways because of a few cultural insights or complaints. Much simpler for those cultures to develop a thick skinned approach to debate. What I see here from those "other" cultures in supporting these arguments amounts to a lack of confidence in public debate. That is just one interpretation out of many - right or wrong. It can just as easily be argued that we here in North America and Europe need sensitivity training. Thats not going to happen because we don't really see anything wrong with our ways. Thats why we can easily interpret the failure of other cultures to debate as a lack of confidence. In fact based on the discussions here to date that's seem to be exactly what the problem is. This is a bit like English instruction. Most cultures in the world train their children in English because English is the language of trade and it is also the dominant language on this planet. In the same way other cultures may very well wish to train their children in our debate style and face the obvious fact which is that we in North America and Europe are rude assholes and their children should have the tools, confidence and education to deal with that. cheers joe baptista On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson here that these cultures can learn from. Free speech can be very painful to listen too but it has served our democracies in North America and Europe. While most other cultures suffer under the whip and boot were by comparison very well off.
I really disagree with the oversimplification above, and suggest it indicates you really didn't get the point of my original message.
Everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Yeah -I get it. North Americans aren't going to change so everyone else has to change (grow "thick skins") instead. Thanks for the welcome and understanding. These responses really let me see the cultural bias in all its glory and WHY it's so difficult to get new ppl involved.
I wonder whether we are not trying to look at the problem from the wrong side, and culture has little, if anything at all, to do with it. Not all North Americans and/or Europeans have "thick skin" and use abusive language disguised in free speech. Actually, most of them are pretty civilized and able to sustain a calm conversation, and even to listen carefully. The point is simply that if abusive language scares people away, there is an incentive in using it against your opponents, so they leave and you remain in control. The GA, to make an example, is physically occupied by a crowd that does exactly this: in the name of freedom of expression they claim to have the right of saying everything in whatever form, and if there is an attempt to enforce civil discourse rules, they scream and yell against "censorship". What escapes the casual observer is that this behaviour ends up in being the very censorship it claims to be against: by driving away those who have "thin skin" (or simply do not have time to lose with jerks), they censor de facto the discourse on the mailing list. The only way to contrast this ill behaviour is not to be scared by bullies, and have clear rules about acceptable and non acceptable behaviour. But this is no surprise to anybody who has been subscribed to mailing lists: it is the common pattern that everybody uses in the internet to defend the right of all not to be abused by a few misbehaviours. Evan's idea of dual lists is the solution that, many years ago, has been applied to the GA. There was a "monitored" and an "unmonitored" list, and the ability of people to subscribe to either one, except for people who were unable to control their behaviour, who were given only the unmonitored choice. I respect Evan's idea, but hope that we do not have to get to that point. Cheers, Roberto
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Not all North Americans and/or Europeans have "thick skin" and use abusive language disguised in free speech. Actually, most of them are pretty civilized and able to sustain a calm conversation, and even to listen carefully.
This is true, however I still maintain that there are some cultures and traditions that simply shun this kind of behaviour. I suggest that many in North America and Europe, even those who would not themselves be aggressive, are de-sensitized to those who are. There are some other environments where such conduct is simply shunned.
The point is simply that if abusive language scares people away, there is an incentive in using it against your opponents, so they leave and you remain in control.
May be, but in control of what? Leading a group with few participants offers a weak mandate.
The GA, to make an example, is physically occupied by a crowd that does exactly this: in the name of freedom of expression they claim to have the right of saying everything in whatever form, and if there is an attempt to enforce civil discourse rules, they scream and yell against "censorship". What escapes the casual observer is that this behaviour ends up in being the very censorship it claims to be against: by driving away those who have "thin skin" (or simply do not have time to lose with jerks), they censor de facto the discourse on the mailing list.
The only way to contrast this ill behaviour is not to be scared by bullies, and have clear rules about acceptable and non acceptable behaviour.
I myself am very concerned about the real censorship that would happen if we made the only list restricted to good behavior. Sometimes some good ideas and important news comes from the aggressive people; that is why I am suggesting a group of "ambassadors" who monitor both lists and pass news and ideas between them. Did that happen in the GA or were both lists completely isolated from each other? A two-list system would provide forums for all; one bully-free, one censorship-free. If you have a better idea, I would eagerly like to hear it.
Evan's idea of dual lists is the solution that, many years ago, has been applied to the GA.
Based on your account above, the current bullying in the GA indicates that this dual-list tactic is not being applied anymore. If there were two lists, the bullying you describe above would not be able to take place (at least, in the restricted list).
I respect Evan's idea, but hope that we do not have to get to that point.
I am not sure what you mean. Look at the lack of participation here from regions outside North America and Europe -- we have more than 100 ALSs but rarely more than 10 different people post here. Read the comments of people who have been agreeing with my analysis of the problem. Look at how the GA deteriorated after abandoning a two-list scheme, according to your own account. To me the issue is not whether or not there is a problem; the problem certainly exists. The issue is what solution would work best. In other words, we are already at "that point"; indeed IMO we've been at that point for at least as long as I've been involved with ICANN. As I said, if my suggested solution is considered too harsh or unworkable, I welcome alternatives. - Evan
Dear Roberto and Evan, IMHO the real problem is the real use of all this. Some are interested in being or wining, others are interested in thinking or doing.If you think of all the time you/we spent on the ICANN lists, what is your/our estimated personal ROI? I must say that mine is purely to have learnt mail-combat trick and practised the way online smoke screens work. If you do not need that knowledge elsewhere, what is the use? This mail system has deployed as a system for occidental addicts (the first time the word "trip" was used, it was in relation to cyberspace). It seems to be a too time/money costing or less exciting addiction for non-occidental cultured minds. As are Chess and Go. ICANN is going to go: will it hurt you less or more than if Vegas closed their Casinos? jfc PS. The day ICANN will pay attention to the GA and @larges they will show it in paying for a professional relational tool serviced by neutral professionnals publishing working summaries of the IGF secretariat quality. At 08:36 28/09/2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Not all North Americans and/or Europeans have "thick skin" and use abusive language disguised in free speech. Actually, most of them are pretty civilized and able to sustain a calm conversation, and even to listen carefully.
This is true, however I still maintain that there are some cultures and traditions that simply shun this kind of behaviour. I suggest that many in North America and Europe, even those who would not themselves be aggressive, are de-sensitized to those who are. There are some other environments where such conduct is simply shunned.
Just so that there's no misunderstanding, when I say "but hope that we do not have to get to that point" I mean that I hope that we can come to a gentlemen's agreement on common behaviour, without having to enforce solutions. Of course, if this is not possible, the double list is a good way out. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Monday, 28 September 2009 08:37 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Not all North Americans and/or Europeans have "thick skin" and use abusive language disguised in free speech. Actually, most of them are pretty civilized and able to sustain a calm conversation, and even to listen carefully.
This is true, however I still maintain that there are some cultures and traditions that simply shun this kind of behaviour. I suggest that many in North America and Europe, even those who would not themselves be aggressive, are de-sensitized to those who are. There are some other environments where such conduct is simply shunned.
The point is simply that if abusive language scares people away, there is an incentive in using it against your opponents, so they leave and you remain in control.
May be, but in control of what? Leading a group with few participants offers a weak mandate.
The GA, to make an example, is physically occupied by a crowd that does exactly this: in the name of freedom of expression they claim to have the right of saying everything in whatever form, and if there is an attempt to enforce civil discourse rules, they scream and yell against "censorship". What escapes the casual observer is that this behaviour ends up in being the very censorship it claims to be against: by driving away those who have "thin skin" (or simply do not have time to lose with jerks), they censor de facto the discourse on the mailing list.
The only way to contrast this ill behaviour is not to be scared by bullies, and have clear rules about acceptable and non acceptable behaviour.
I myself am very concerned about the real censorship that would happen if we made the only list restricted to good behavior. Sometimes some good ideas and important news comes from the aggressive people; that is why I am suggesting a group of "ambassadors" who monitor both lists and pass news and ideas between them. Did that happen in the GA or were both lists completely isolated from each other?
A two-list system would provide forums for all; one bully-free, one censorship-free. If you have a better idea, I would eagerly like to hear it.
Evan's idea of dual lists is the solution that, many years ago, has been applied to the GA.
Based on your account above, the current bullying in the GA indicates that this dual-list tactic is not being applied anymore. If there were two lists, the bullying you describe above would not be able to take place (at least, in the restricted list).
I respect Evan's idea, but hope that we do not have to get to that point.
I am not sure what you mean. Look at the lack of participation here from regions outside North America and Europe -- we have more than 100 ALSs but rarely more than 10 different people post here. Read the comments of people who have been agreeing with my analysis of the problem. Look at how the GA deteriorated after abandoning a two-list scheme, according to your own account.
To me the issue is not whether or not there is a problem; the problem certainly exists. The issue is what solution would work best.
In other words, we are already at "that point"; indeed IMO we've been at that point for at least as long as I've been involved with ICANN.
As I said, if my suggested solution is considered too harsh or unworkable, I welcome alternatives.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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.
Hola!, Ola!, Hello, Hi every one, As an international person, I fully understand what the email below is presenting to the Community. There are many ideas and contributions to be made but the 'language' used in discussions may have denied others from taking part effectively in the past. It is possible to have volunteers who would translate contributions into many languages so that we capture views and contributions from everybody? To begin with, I welcome Swahili speakers from Eastern Africa to post contributions in Kiswahili then I translate them into Plain English (no jargon) then someone picks from there to translate into other languages and so on...? I am copying this to Groups that I belong for information Global opinions come in many languages and expressions and let us not miss any. Regards Yassin
From: info@internautabrasil.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:16:08 -0300 CC: lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] RES: (not really about) Travel Funding
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.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out! http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009
It is even more difficult for Asians to take apart in the "list discussion", not only because we are sky of our "plain English" or we are not skin-thickety for such virtual tomato-fight, but we acutely feel that we are not accepted by the main stream here. The messages we took time to write and post were most probably un-responded, overlooked or (susceptibly) trashed. Our views are not heard and not taken into account. Our voices echo in the sound of silence. I'm not going to use any concrete example to upset anyone for I believe in Confucianism, which mandates tolerance as the core value. But I do hope the cultural environment could change and become friendly to the participants for any part of the world. -- Hong Xue, Ph.D. Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law Beijing Normal University 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One is that we, the community of internet users, were promised a controlling set of seats on ICANN's board of directors as part of the initial promises of ICANN when it was being created.
I hear you Karl, but it's not about control! It's about doing what's good for the Internet and what's good for the users, and ultimately, what's good for the users is good for ICANN, because what's good for the users will be good for all of the other constituencies being paid ultimately by the users. I have found this understanding at ALAC. I wish others did too and stopped picking nits where there aren't any. Every minute spent arguing about nothingness is 60 seconds lost not working on important issues. Kind regards, O.
Sorry you don't understand, but I do. I can give you some ideas - Evan did a really good job, but from my very specific area and culture, I think that: 1. there's definitely a culture that we talk amongst ourselves and bounce ideas off each other before firming up an opinion to post 2. We don't like getting rude emails back, so there is trepidation, resulting in a decision not to "go public" 3. We prefer to talk (f2f, phone, Skype) than to type. 4. Have you noticed that most of the Caribbean ppl who post send a long, properly edited missive, and not a simple email note? These are the result of long discussions, thought, research and drafting. May be wrong, but always the result of a lot of time spent, since 5. email is a formal communication to many Caribbean people. 6. It's also strange emailing ppl we don't know and haven't met. It's better to have met f2f before going into an email relationship, and if not f2f, at least a voice chat. 7. In LAC, the bi-lingual mailing list is very difficult to use. So there's a lot of discussion at the teleconferences, and of course a lot of backchannel chats. Hope this helps you to understand why this english-only mailing list does not count on high participation from the Caribbean. it's not a bad thing either - there are many tools for communication, and some work better for some people than others. We should all be able to pick our preferred method of communication and use that, and not feel belittled or pressured to use tools with which we are not comfortable. Jacqueline 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 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.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Great work JAM!
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:35:12 -0400 From: jam@jacquelinemorris.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Funding
Sorry you don't understand, but I do. I can give you some ideas - Evan did a really good job, but from my very specific area and culture, I think that:
1. there's definitely a culture that we talk amongst ourselves and bounce ideas off each other before firming up an opinion to post 2. We don't like getting rude emails back, so there is trepidation, resulting in a decision not to "go public" 3. We prefer to talk (f2f, phone, Skype) than to type. 4. Have you noticed that most of the Caribbean ppl who post send a long, properly edited missive, and not a simple email note? These are the result of long discussions, thought, research and drafting. May be wrong, but always the result of a lot of time spent, since 5. email is a formal communication to many Caribbean people. 6. It's also strange emailing ppl we don't know and haven't met. It's better to have met f2f before going into an email relationship, and if not f2f, at least a voice chat. 7. In LAC, the bi-lingual mailing list is very difficult to use. So there's a lot of discussion at the teleconferences, and of course a lot of backchannel chats.
Hope this helps you to understand why this english-only mailing list does not count on high participation from the Caribbean. it's not a bad thing either - there are many tools for communication, and some work better for some people than others. We should all be able to pick our preferred method of communication and use that, and not feel belittled or pressured to use tools with which we are not comfortable.
Jacqueline
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 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.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________
Thank you Jacqueline and I can confirm that this is the case for our part of the world. Jacqueline A. Morris a écrit :
Sorry you don't understand, but I do. I can give you some ideas - Evan did a really good job, but from my very specific area and culture, I think that:
1. there's definitely a culture that we talk amongst ourselves and bounce ideas off each other before firming up an opinion to post 2. We don't like getting rude emails back, so there is trepidation, resulting in a decision not to "go public" 3. We prefer to talk (f2f, phone, Skype) than to type. 4. Have you noticed that most of the Caribbean ppl who post send a long, properly edited missive, and not a simple email note? These are the result of long discussions, thought, research and drafting. May be wrong, but always the result of a lot of time spent, since 5. email is a formal communication to many Caribbean people. 6. It's also strange emailing ppl we don't know and haven't met. It's better to have met f2f before going into an email relationship, and if not f2f, at least a voice chat. 7. In LAC, the bi-lingual mailing list is very difficult to use. So there's a lot of discussion at the teleconferences, and of course a lot of backchannel chats.
Hope this helps you to understand why this english-only mailing list does not count on high participation from the Caribbean. it's not a bad thing either - there are many tools for communication, and some work better for some people than others. We should all be able to pick our preferred method of communication and use that, and not feel belittled or pressured to use tools with which we are not comfortable.
Jacqueline
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 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.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Danny Sorry you weren't at the monthly TTCS meetings held in Pizza Hut in Port of Spain, Trinidad. Guess you can't know what was communicated to the membership of the TTCS ALS. Give it up - you cannot honestly say that not one of the more than 100 ALSes has communicated with their membership on the issue of the Board seat. Or are you transporting in to every meeting of every ALS? I thought that you were pretty smart, but that statement is just plain dumb, and distracts from serious discussion of the issues - how do we judge participation, by NA standards or by standards of other cultures? And of course, what next steps should we take towards implementing the At Large voting Director position? Jacqueline Danny Younger wrote:
It has been about a month since the ICANN Board announced that the At-Large Community will be permitted to appoint a director to the Board, so one would have thought that there would have been an immediate flurry of on-line discussion in all of the regions in order to quickly turn this long-held dream of at-large representation into a reality.
But there are no online discussions on this topic on the African list, nor on the European list, nor on the Latin American list nor on the Asia-Pacific list. It's just another ho-hum moment for those non-commercial organizations that are pretending to be the at-large in exchange for travel funding to ICANN sessions.
These orgs obviously don't care about board-level representation and obviously don't care about the real at-large community -- they are pretenders; they can't be bothered to "do" anything other than to hold out their hands in anticipation of travel vouchers.
Have we seen any notices posted at the local level about the upcoming at-Large director appointment? Of course not. ALS representatives can't be bothered to inform their own local communities.
The whole process is a sham and always has been.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (18)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andres Piazza -
Beau Brendler -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
info＠internautabrasil.org -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
jefsey -
Joe Baptista -
Karl Auerbach -
Khaled KOUBAA -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Omar Kaminski -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thompson, Darlene -
Yassin Mshana