Cool - just that a lot of the ALS work is in disseminating information and receiving input via alternative means. There's radio, f2f meetings, school outreach and a lot of off-line work going on in the developing world to try to get input from the users who aren't as connected or knowledgeable as the people who are active on this list. That's one of the reasons that the "global elections" weren't global or representative of users IMO (the massive public announcement wasn't anywhere near massive enough). Jacqueline Dominik Filipp wrote:

Jacqueline,

This is just an idea to think over. Online surveys, when massively publicly announced, can be a very efficient means to collect large pattern of public opinions. I know there are countries where the Internet access is perhaps not that obvious as in developed countries; and I am not proposing to restrict the gathering of opinions solely to the surveys, there are also other means worth considering. But the Internet access is widely spread nowadays and covers a large part of the planet.

I hope we can both agree that online surveys would be a significant first step towards the public community. And they can be conducted on regional level by ALSes. Other approaches can be considered in parallel, no problem.

Dominik

Dominik Filipp wrote:

Try to see the positives. I wouldn't see it that dramatically. Access to the Internet, regular or on occasion, is available in many many countries. And the other means are by no means excluded.

IMO, At-Large is essentially the global community of "users of the Internet". As such, most people who would have an interest in ICANN, one would think, would at very least have Internet access. Improving IT literacy and giving people access to the Internet are extremely important issues, but outside the bounds of ICANN. It just strikes me as simple logic that someone without access to the Internet is likely not interested in -- and may be incapable of really understanding -- the controversies of its management. For that reason I would agree with Dominik that online surveys are an effective -- and certainly a cost effective -- manner to receive input from large numbers of community members who are at least Internet-aware. The main flaw with this tactic is that it is passive: surveys cannot solicit opinion, they can only wait for opinion to come to them. Left alone and unsupported, surveys only attract the brash and self-assured, which biases the results. For this reason IMO online surveys need to be accompanied by grassroots (ALS) support and publicity, to encourage people to understand the questions being surveyed and to participate. Such a combination, IMO, is hard to surpass in potential reach and cost effectiveness. It may not be the only solution, but it is to me the best one when resources are limited and the audience can be presumed to at least be aware enough to operate the survey. - Evan

I like to point out that web tools will not provide "fair representation" globally. There are many areas and regions where still access is a big problem, many are using only dial-ups and they are expensive. Norbert Klein from Cambodia has always pointed out this issue. I am now working on the remote island and mountain areas access problem both home in Japan and to some degree for Nepal. So when "massive" campaign is employed, they are usually voices from developed regions with good connectivity, yet other people will be very much left out. I am in favor of using web tools, however, to be a good reference tool and out-reach means. They can be a good complementary tool, but not a simple alternative to the ALS/RALO/ALAC process per se. I hope people all agree with this. Of course, current ALAC-RALO-ALS framework is not perfect and does not solve the access issue, but we have to be very cafeful. One of the reasons why the current structure was proposed was the reflection of the "global" election where some countries such as mine, Japan, seemed to dominate the regional membership since the government and industry effectively organized the targeted campaign and there was no means to stop that that time. AND also after the AtLarge Directors were elected from five regions, most of them lost contact with the consituencies, or the very people who voted and elected them, since a) ICANN destroyed all the memebrship data and communication means, b) most, if not all, directors didn't or couldn't maintain the communication with the consituencies constantly, and c) there were no effective mechanism to guarantee that within ICANN So there was some empahsis on "informed participation" than "mechanical representation" at that time. I do not intend to say "keep the status quo" at all, but while AtLarge or ALAC is under the review now, I think it might be good to take some old lessons from the past to create the new future. best, izumi 2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>:

Agreed.

Dominik

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:10 PM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large

Dominik Filipp wrote:

...

Try to see the positives. I wouldn't see it that dramatically. Access to the Internet, regular or on occasion, is available in many many countries. And the other means are by no means excluded.

IMO, At-Large is essentially the global community of "users of the Internet". As such, most people who would have an interest in ICANN, one would think, would at very least have Internet access.

Improving IT literacy and giving people access to the Internet are extremely important issues, but outside the bounds of ICANN. It just strikes me as simple logic that someone without access to the Internet is likely not interested in -- and may be incapable of really understanding -- the controversies of its management.

For that reason I would agree with Dominik that online surveys are an effective -- and certainly a cost effective -- manner to receive input from large numbers of community members who are at least Internet-aware. The main flaw with this tactic is that it is passive: surveys cannot solicit opinion, they can only wait for opinion to come to them. Left alone and unsupported, surveys only attract the brash and self-assured, which biases the results. For this reason IMO online surveys need to be accompanied by grassroots (ALS) support and publicity, to encourage people to understand the questions being surveyed and to participate.

Such a combination, IMO, is hard to surpass in potential reach and cost effectiveness. It may not be the only solution, but it is to me the best one when resources are limited and the audience can be presumed to at least be aware enough to operate the survey.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

At 05:40 09/06/2008, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

I do not intend to say "keep the status quo" at all, but while AtLarge or ALAC is under the review now, I think it might be good to take some old lessons from the past to create the new future.

I agree completely.

Dear Evan and Izumie, Our experience in France is as follows. 1) we numbered a few candidates on the BoD in 2000 (approx. 10?) but far fewer voters than in Germany where the BoD Member was elected. 2) I created france@large with most of the other candidates (we had a good relationship during the campaign, which was exclusively private - in some other countries Govs interfered). 3) we invited the German BoD Member to the French Parliament, had dinner with AFNIC (ccTLD), had a meeting with DNSO/BC, etc. 4) there were two of us, which funded themselves, in the ICANN meeting where the first @large reps were sited (and the first new TLD created), along with two others with their organization's money. 5) we extensively answered the questionnaire on the @large evolution and found out afterward that: - ICANN wanted to kill the @large representation - our ideas went along well with the WSIS under preparation, so we modified and confirmed our strategy: - we considered the network as a people centric common property that we had to co-operate together with for our mutual benefit. - france@large was efficient as a competent dedicated secretariat + active projects serving the @large community of the Internet lead users. - answer was good when we we started protecting our common interests at the roots (DNS, intelligence leaks, privacy, IETF standards, ISO, ITU, and ISOC). - and focused on the preparation of the WSIS and most certainly influenced it. 6) as such, when we accepted to help welcome ICANN in Paris and we requested to be accredited, in which we learned (from the English text we do not understand that the Staff has priorities other than to officially translate in French) that we both did not exist and ... were too big (?) 7) the resulting dispute over ALAC, ICANN, etc. and the need for proper Internet At Large free exchanges that are out of the Control of anyone, led to identify what our problems with the public were: - people know nothing about the Internet itself. They are familiar with the web and email, but not how they actually work. But they are quick learners if interested - they feel that they are manipulated by Google, etc. For example, when they are told about Rumsfeld's I/O Road Map they are not upset, just relieved to learn that there is a mechanical logic to the US influence on the Internet, and they ask "what next" to protect themselves against it. - they feel that there is a big change coming ahead, without knowing what it may be. When digital convergence and semantic evolution are explained to them, they understand it all. Most feel it is too much for them to care right now, but they hope we will take the job. A significant minority gets excited and very interested by the convergence with other sciences/technologies that they may so happen to be involved in. This leds us to change our tactic for the Paris meeting. We wanted to document needs and problems, and make propositions. We understood that people grasp the problems we face, but did not yet have the knowledge in order to explain these problem in a way that ICANN can understand (ICANN does not even understand that we exist :-)). Therefore, we are going to publish a simple yet comprehensive explanation (FAQ) on the Internet, along with its governance, evolution, and the way that we want it to happen. And to ask people to go and see for themselves. To observe that ICANN talks and print but does not bite nor make much. We will run debriefings (on June 27, 28, and 29 at different places with different people), and confirm, detail, and publish a strategy. Most already accept it, but they will then be able to better understand, and (key point) to also understand as to how and why it can succeed to everyone's benefit. Eventually, on the 2nd of July we will start working/acting with two exploration meetings on ethitechnics and multilinguistics, which are the two technical/normative/documentation priorities that we identified (to build technology with an ethical equilibrium; to technically support equal linguistic diversity). 8) our position is, therefore, vey dubitative concerning ICANN. We fear that the transition from an American Internet towards an international Internet, which we do need and that we believed that we agreed upon in Tunis will not be as smooth as we planned. ICANN has to be helped throughout the transition (and ALAC is the proper place for Civil Society, but we have observed that ICANN seems to oppose that transition. It may have some short term vision for that, but it may also just not understand where we feel we are. I hope this helps. jfc

a) and b) happned before the ALAC was established, so we could do much at all. to counter c) ALS/RALO was proposed to put some mechanism between the public and ALAC members, however ALAC memebers do not have voting rights at the Board, that is different from the a) to c) situation. izumi 2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>:

...

... AND also after the AtLarge Directors were elected from five regions, most of them lost contact with the consituencies, or the very people who voted and elected them, since a) ICANN destroyed all the memebrship data and communication means, b) most, if not all, directors didn't or couldn't maintain the communication with the consituencies constantly, and c) there were no effective mechanism to guarantee that within ICANN

What have you done as an ALAC member within the ICANN structure to change or avoid this undesired situation?

Dominik

-----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu@gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:34 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Evan Leibovitch; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large

I like to point out that web tools will not provide "fair representation" globally.

There are many areas and regions where still access is a big problem, many are using only dial-ups and they are expensive. Norbert Klein from Cambodia has always pointed out this issue. I am now working on the remote island and mountain areas access problem both home in Japan and to some degree for Nepal.

So when "massive" campaign is employed, they are usually voices from developed regions with good connectivity, yet other people will be very much left out.

I am in favor of using web tools, however, to be a good reference tool and out-reach means. They can be a good complementary tool, but not a simple alternative to the ALS/RALO/ALAC process per se. I hope people all agree with this.

Of course, current ALAC-RALO-ALS framework is not perfect and does not solve the access issue, but we have to be very cafeful.

One of the reasons why the current structure was proposed was the reflection of the "global" election where some countries such as mine, Japan, seemed to dominate the regional membership since the government and industry effectively organized the targeted campaign and there was no means to stop that that time.

AND also after the AtLarge Directors were elected from five regions, most of them lost contact with the consituencies, or the very people who voted and elected them, since a) ICANN destroyed all the memebrship data and communication means, b) most, if not all, directors didn't or couldn't maintain the communication with the consituencies constantly, and c) there were no effective mechanism to guarantee that within ICANN

So there was some empahsis on "informed participation" than "mechanical representation" at that time.

I do not intend to say "keep the status quo" at all, but while AtLarge or ALAC is under the review now, I think it might be good to take some old lessons from the past to create the new future.

best,

izumi

2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>:

...

Agreed.

Dominik

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:10 PM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large

Dominik Filipp wrote:

...

Try to see the positives. I wouldn't see it that dramatically. Access

...

...

to the Internet, regular or on occasion, is available in many many countries. And the other means are by no means excluded.

IMO, At-Large is essentially the global community of "users of the Internet". As such, most people who would have an interest in ICANN, one would think, would at very least have Internet access.

Improving IT literacy and giving people access to the Internet are extremely important issues, but outside the bounds of ICANN. It just strikes me as simple logic that someone without access to the Internet

...

is likely not interested in -- and may be incapable of really understanding -- the controversies of its management.

For that reason I would agree with Dominik that online surveys are an effective -- and certainly a cost effective -- manner to receive input

...

from large numbers of community members who are at least Internet-aware. The main flaw with this tactic is that it is passive: surveys cannot solicit opinion, they can only wait for opinion to come to them. Left alone and unsupported, surveys only attract the brash and self-assured, which biases the results. For this reason IMO online surveys need to be accompanied by grassroots (ALS) support and publicity, to encourage people to understand the questions being surveyed and to participate.

Such a combination, IMO, is hard to surpass in potential reach and cost effectiveness. It may not be the only solution, but it is to me the best one when resources are limited and the audience can be presumed to at least be aware enough to operate the survey.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

--

...

Izumi Aizu <<

Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

2008/6/9 Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>:

That is, so far nearly nothing. Right?

NO. The problems I wrote were different issues than the ones we are facing right now. izumi

Dominik

-----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu@gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 12:48 PM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: Evan Leibovitch; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC and AtLarge and france at large

a) and b) happned before the ALAC was established, so we could do much at all. to counter c) ALS/RALO was proposed to put some mechanism between the public and ALAC members, however ALAC memebers do not have voting rights at the Board, that is different from the a) to c) situation.

izumi