Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent posting below... CLO > Evan, > The issue of local user participation ended up being less then > optimal due to a couple of reasons. <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next ALAC Meeting on the 25th > First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - > ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was > not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were > nothere. <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU had not seen the video in question (see snip below) > Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a > local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive > ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee > egyptian govt offcials. <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my actions. When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting righs on content <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... > Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair > or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance > notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed > with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly > just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN meeting matter. > That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean > that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting > in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. > On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I > was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open > skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san > juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. > Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for > virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then > ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a > formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure > virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is > not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective > and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) > As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public > participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing > public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US > election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play > them back at thr meeting. Sigh. <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) > In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation > and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to > control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . <CLO> I couldn't agree more Robert <insert of request email on 30th October> (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) Nick & Cheryl: I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose to show at at the ICANN meeting . .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest to do so regards Robert --- R. Guerra Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 Email: guerra@freedomhouse.org CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the original message. If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special arrangements will be made. <end Insert snip> Response from Nick... On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: Dear Robert: I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere online so it can be seen? RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM Nick: I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. Robert --
Robert, I was interested as an internet user and professional from the region to join you and others for a dinner to meet Gamal "or Gemy is his nickname, whom is not the editor in chief of Al Distor Egyptian newspaper, he is the webmaster", i was interested to hear from him the problems of Egyptian bloggers and status of internet in Egypt but i did not hear anything related to that, this evening did not encourage me to participate in the video show beside another having another commitment at the same time. as i have expressed my opinion in an earlier email i don't think the ICANN meeting is the right fora for such discussions, am against web filtering and i support freedom of expression, but i guess we might lose track is the main focus to the internet status in Egypt was political, i have asked Gemy that night to ask his fellow bloggers to attend ICANN meeting to participate, learn and engage . I hope this incident dose not divert our attention from the main point which enhancing participation in ICANN meetings . Regards, Mohamed EL Bashir > > Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent > posting below... > > CLO > >> Evan, > >> The issue of local user participation ended up being less then >> optimal due to a couple of reasons. > > <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the > standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... > The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) > response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next > ALAC Meeting on the 25th > >> First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - >> ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was >> not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were >> nothere. > > <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and > Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest > (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue > so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your > request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the > 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you > indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this > independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV > of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom > House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in > ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick > replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU > had not seen the video in question (see snip below) > >> Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a >> local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive >> ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee >> egyptian govt offcials. > > <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were > critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on > what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that > was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the > ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my > actions. > > When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac > meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was > screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting > righs on content > > <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we > had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at > least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider > the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not > seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added > under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that > this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the > Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT > a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... > >> Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair >> or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance >> notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed >> with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly >> just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. > > <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting > space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with > regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in > ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it > was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned > up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN > meeting matter. > >> That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean >> that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting >> in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. > >> On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I >> was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open >> skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san >> juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. >> Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for >> virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then >> ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a >> formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure >> virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is >> not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective >> and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. > > <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us > involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it > will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) > >> As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public >> participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing >> public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US >> election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play >> them back at thr meeting. Sigh. > > <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the > ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this > important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with > Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) > >> In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation >> and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to >> control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done > - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps > interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the > board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . > > <CLO> I couldn't agree more > > Robert > > <insert of request email on 30th October> > (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) > > Nick & Cheryl: > > I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who > is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and > quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. > > Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, > have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min > video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & > challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose > to show at at the ICANN meeting . > > .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a > small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN > meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges > faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of > more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. > > > If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it > would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better > know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an > ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one > or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that > At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. > > > As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and > others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - > is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for > a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available > for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC > and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest > to do so > > > > regards > > Robert > --- > > > > R. Guerra > Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House > 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 > Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 > Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 > Email: guerra@freedomhouse.org > > CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity > to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged > and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the > message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the > original message. > > If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that > electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this > message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise > protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special > arrangements will be made. > > <end Insert snip> > > Response from Nick... > > On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > Dear Robert: > > I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow > at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to > try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings > ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere > online so it can be seen? > > RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM > > Nick: > > I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. > > Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. > > Robert > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >
I will review latest comments later today as they don't seem tread well on my gmail bbery ap Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved. There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings. Meetings in my opinion should include not only effective advance planning and prep, but also partication of internet users - which includes virtual and in person strategies. For example, alac could include a briefing to internet local internet users - so that the novice icann oberver/user can in 1hr or less learn what at-large has done since the last in person meeting as well as learn how to engage via als's or other structures. Robert On 11/17/08, admin@isoc.sd <admin@isoc.sd> wrote: > Robert, > > I was interested as an internet user and professional from the region to > join you and others for a dinner to meet Gamal "or Gemy is his nickname, > whom is not the editor in chief of Al Distor Egyptian newspaper, he is the > webmaster", i was interested to hear from him the problems of Egyptian > bloggers and status of internet in Egypt but i did not hear anything > related to that, this evening did not encourage me to participate in the > video show beside another having another commitment at the same time. > > as i have expressed my opinion in an earlier email i don't think the ICANN > meeting is the right fora for such discussions, am against web filtering > and i support freedom of expression, but i guess we might lose track is > the main focus to the internet status in Egypt was political, i have asked > Gemy that night to ask his fellow bloggers to attend ICANN meeting to > participate, learn and engage . > > I hope this incident dose not divert our attention from the main point > which enhancing participation in ICANN meetings . > > Regards, > Mohamed EL Bashir > > > >> >> Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent >> posting below... >> >> CLO >> >>> Evan, >> >>> The issue of local user participation ended up being less then >>> optimal due to a couple of reasons. >> >> <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the >> standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... >> The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) >> response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next >> ALAC Meeting on the 25th >> >>> First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - >>> ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was >>> not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were >>> nothere. >> >> <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and >> Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest >> (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue >> so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your >> request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the >> 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you >> indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this >> independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV >> of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom >> House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in >> ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick >> replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU >> had not seen the video in question (see snip below) >> >>> Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a >>> local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive >>> ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee >>> egyptian govt offcials. >> >> <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were >> critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on >> what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that >> was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the >> ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my >> actions. >> >> When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac >> meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was >> screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting >> righs on content >> >> <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we >> had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at >> least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider >> the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not >> seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added >> under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that >> this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the >> Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT >> a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... >> >>> Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair >>> or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance >>> notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed >>> with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly >>> just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. >> >> <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting >> space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with >> regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in >> ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it >> was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned >> up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN >> meeting matter. >> >>> That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean >>> that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting >>> in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. >> >>> On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I >>> was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open >>> skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san >>> juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. >>> Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for >>> virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then >>> ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a >>> formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure >>> virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is >>> not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective >>> and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. >> >> <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us >> involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it >> will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) >> >>> As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public >>> participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing >>> public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US >>> election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play >>> them back at thr meeting. Sigh. >> >> <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the >> ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this >> important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with >> Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) >> >>> In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation >>> and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to >>> control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done >> - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps >> interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the >> board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . >> >> <CLO> I couldn't agree more >> >> Robert >> >> <insert of request email on 30th October> >> (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) >> >> Nick & Cheryl: >> >> I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who >> is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and >> quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. >> >> Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, >> have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min >> video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & >> challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose >> to show at at the ICANN meeting . >> >> .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a >> small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN >> meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges >> faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of >> more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. >> >> >> If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it >> would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better >> know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an >> ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one >> or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that >> At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. >> >> >> As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and >> others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - >> is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for >> a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available >> for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC >> and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest >> to do so >> >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> --- >> >> >> >> R. Guerra >> Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House >> 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 >> Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 >> Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 >> Email: guerra@freedomhouse.org >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER >> >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >> to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged >> and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the >> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the >> original message. >> >> If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that >> electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this >> message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise >> protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special >> arrangements will be made. >> >> <end Insert snip> >> >> Response from Nick... >> >> On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> >> Dear Robert: >> >> I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow >> at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to >> try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings >> ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere >> online so it can be seen? >> >> RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM >> >> Nick: >> >> I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. >> >> Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. >> >> Robert >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > > > -- Sent from my mobile device
Robert Guerra wrote:
Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for grievances that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN. I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and the benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings.
Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed by those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to the free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very small but active minority. IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's commitment to it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity. - Evan
At 16:25 17/11/2008, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity
Like in Paris? :-) jfc france@large PS. We still have not received the promised French language official response to our application. So, we still cannot appeal against it! Would "they" only want we do not make it to Mexico?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:25:19 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF.
I agree with Evan. I will add that the local Internet community's concerns may not fit into ICANN's narrow mandate. When we tried to outreach to the local community for the ICANN meeting in Luxembourg, we found out that the individual users concern at the time was mainly the high price of broadband access, not the allocation of globally unique identifiers on the Internet. 3 years later, it still remains a challenge at the ALS level to get meaningful input from our membership on issues that are within the mandate of ICANN. So much for local Internet community involvement. I think it is crucial not to turn the ALAC, RALOs and At-large into a generic end user caucus on all Internet issues. We need to remain focused if we want to be relevant. Patrick
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns? This, to me, is a proof that ICANN is just not inline with the challenges facing the Internet today. Prompted by a small group of companies which are solely domain-name registries/registrars, ICANN is dazed by a complete focus on domain name issues and tries to kid itself that other issues such as IPv6 migration/transition for example, are none of its business. Have you asked yourself whether Mr. Egyptian Joe or Egyptian Co. Inc. is bothered about domain names? Domain names are a rich man's game. Evan, with all due respect, you should not be "disgusted" that the local community did not attend. Much rather, you should be concerned and we should all work together to try and find out why it ended up this way. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <kieren.mccarthy@icann.org>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:25:19 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
wrote:
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF.
I agree with Evan.
I will add that the local Internet community's concerns may not fit
into
ICANN's narrow mandate. When we tried to outreach to the local community for the ICANN meeting in Luxembourg, we found out that the individual users concern at the time was mainly the high price of broadband access, not the allocation of globally unique identifiers on the Internet. 3 years later, it still remains a challenge at the ALS level to get meaningful input from our membership on issues that are within the mandate of ICANN. So much for local Internet community involvement.
I think it is crucial not to turn the ALAC, RALOs and At-large into a generic end user caucus on all Internet issues. We need to remain focused if we want to be relevant.
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
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does. A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does.
A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it.
In part, because ppl want ICANN to do lots of other things (pushing IPv6 or content regulation come to mind in this thread). -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
ICANN¹s budget is about half that amount. On 19/11/2008 11:57, "John L" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it.
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
ICANN¹s budget is about half that amount.
This year, you're quite right. I was assuming that next year they actually take in as much money for new GTLD applications as they project. Of course, you could ask the same question about $50M. R's, John
On 19/11/2008 11:57, "John L" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it.
Amen, Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done. Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback. D ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John L Sent: Wed 11/19/2008 5:57 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does. A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com <http://www.johnlevine.com/> , ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ 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/>
Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:
Amen,
Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done.
Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback.
FYI, in the last three years I have been another member of the dot mobi policy board (on appointment by the policy board itself) and I just yielded my position so that they can now pick John instead. He is quite focused on the mobile Internet, he could commit more time and energy than I could, and while I really enjoyed the yearly meeting in Dublin with the group, I was not giving back enough to justify my presence, so I gladly let him be reappointed through that other channel and he will now serve for another year. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Darlene, Vittorio: I´m the one who has been appointed by ALAC to Dot MOBI PAB, not José. This doesn´t change the fact that the contribution I can make wouldn´t be as qualified as John´s. That´s why I was glad when heard that John was appointed for another year. But you must understand the differences between ALAC and Dot Mobi. ALAC is Internet User´s space at ICANN and Multilingualism is one of the main concerns in the region. When José and Carlos speak about translating policy or that kind of things they are carring a priority for the region. They seem to be succesfull in that claim at least. I´m not at ALAC physical meetings yet and I have 2 days old in the Alac Internal list but I saw Carlos and Alan discussing (In english) dedicated, respectfully and with solid criterias, about policy matters, in many mails. Continuating with the difference between Dot Mobi and ALAC, Dot Mobi is a Joint Venture, with Confidencial Demands and many other aspects. I consider that multilingualism could be useful for MAG Businnes at Dot Mobi to contribute to their Businnes Models but that´s it. Finally, It just appears Jose´s mail and also want to thank for his words. Andrés ps: You can take for sure that as ALAC Liason at Dot Mobi I won´t keep complaining about translations, it would be waisting a great opportunity. > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:48:29 +0100> From: vb@bertola.eu> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board> > Thompson, Darlene ha scritto:> > Amen,> > > > Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you> > didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that> > to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the> > other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that> > don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just> > see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly> > complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done.> > > > Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get> > discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are> > appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much> > feedback.> > FYI, in the last three years I have been another member of the dot mobi> policy board (on appointment by the policy board itself) and I just> yielded my position so that they can now pick John instead. He is quite> focused on the mobile Internet, he could commit more time and energy> than I could, and while I really enjoyed the yearly meeting in Dublin> with the group, I was not giving back enough to justify my presence, so> I gladly let him be reappointed through that other channel and he will> now serve for another year.> Ciao,> -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------> > > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/
Andres Piazza ha scritto:
Darlene, Vittorio:
I´m the one who has been appointed by ALAC to Dot MOBI PAB, not José.
I hadn't even noticed that Darlene had written the wrong name...
This doesn´t change the fact that the contribution I can make wouldn´t be as qualified as John´s.
I don't think so, it will just be different. This is not a competition in which there are people who are better than others; in a constituency everyone is equal in prerogatives and different in experience and skills, and can contribute different things. I decided to leave it to John because I made a comparison between him and me, based on the specific present focus of activity (he just published "Mobile Internet for Dummies") and availability of time, and on the personal consideration that I have already been there for three years and it's not healthy for people to stay too much in the same position. In fact, of the four incumbents from the "user side", only John stayed while three decided to leave, to do other things and to allow for new people like you. In the end, I think that the result is a good mix. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Thanks for your words Vittorio. I also know I can contribute in Outreach at ALAC, taking in account that the NDA doesn´t allows to disclose key information but ALAC expects to communicate some policy issues. So it´s a challenge to find ballance, respect the Businnes Related Information of mTLD and to fulfill At Large expectations. Moreover, perhaps having a lawyer´s perspective in the 10 PAB Members could be interesting, and also because I would be the only (or one of the few) latin american, it will be a big opportunity for me to put my two cents. Kind Regards, Andrés > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:45:55 +0100> From: vb@bertola.eu> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board> > Andres Piazza ha scritto:> > Darlene, Vittorio:> > > > I´m the one who has been appointed by ALAC to Dot MOBI PAB, not José.> > I hadn't even noticed that Darlene had written the wrong name...> > > This doesn´t change the fact that the contribution I can make> > wouldn´t be as qualified as John´s.> > I don't think so, it will just be different. This is not a competition> in which there are people who are better than others; in a constituency> everyone is equal in prerogatives and different in experience and> skills, and can contribute different things.> I decided to leave it to John because I made a comparison between him> and me, based on the specific present focus of activity (he just> published "Mobile Internet for Dummies") and availability of time, and> on the personal consideration that I have already been there for three> years and it's not healthy for people to stay too much in the same> position. In fact, of the four incumbents from the "user side", only> John stayed while three decided to leave, to do other things and to> allow for new people like you. In the end, I think that the result is a> good mix.> Ciao,> -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------> > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_112...
Darlene: If I complain about language issues it is on behalf of the community I represent and elected me, it is a big deal for them. I speak enough English to understand and make myself understood. The person elected, whose name is Andres, not José, speaks good English so language barrier shall not be a problem. Just to make it clear, I did not campaigned for Andres Piazza, Carlos did and it seems to have worked pretty good. I just happen to know Andres Piazza and think he is a good working guy. José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Thompson, Darlene Enviado el: jueves, 20 de noviembre de 2008 02:56 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board Amen, Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done. Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback. D _____ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John L Sent: Wed 11/19/2008 5:57 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does. A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com <http://www.johnlevine.com/> , ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>
Darlene. In my point of view, you have had an unfortunate participation. You can make a comment but is no neccesary include others in her comments. The lack of respect showed by you is unacceptable. On the other side I want to say you, that the realities are very different in differents regions, and our needs, sure, are not your needs and, Internet is property of all of us including LACRALO people. And more. It`s impossible to "know the job", for the end users of other regions when the participation is only possible in one languaje, the yours. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:25:35 -0500From: DThompson@GOV.NU.CATo: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board Amen, Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done. Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback. D From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John LSent: Wed 11/19/2008 5:57 AMTo: At-Large WorldwideSubject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD> drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IPspace. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not whatICANN does.A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job,it costs $100M/yr to do it.Regards,John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly._______________________________________________At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Darlene. In my point of view, you have had an unfortunate participation. You can make a comment but is no neccesary include others in her comments. The lack of respect showed by you is unacceptable. On the other side I want to say you, that the realities are very different in differents regions, and our needs, sure, are not your needs and, Internet is property of all of us including LACRALO people. And more. It`s impossible to "know the job", for the end users of other regions when the participation is only possible in one languaje, the yours. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:25:35 -0500From: DThompson@GOV.NU.CATo: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board Amen, Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done. Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback. D From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John LSent: Wed 11/19/2008 5:57 AMTo: At-Large WorldwideSubject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD> drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IPspace. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not whatICANN does.A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job,it costs $100M/yr to do it.Regards,John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly._______________________________________________At-Large mailing listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Well, there ya go. NEVER send e-mail while on sinus meds that impare your thinking. This was supposed to be a private e-mail but I flubbed it up. I won't say sorry because I meant what I said, HOWEVER, all of my private chats with Andre Piazza gives me hope that Carlos and Andres have championed a winner into this position. Andres is often active during f2f ICANN meetings with whatever they have for remote participation (which is horrifying) - even from the other side of the world. I do believe that John should have continued in this position but, then again, I'm starting to think that a switch-over of ALL positions (most especially my own) would be good every couple of years. One starts to just get too jaded and tired. D ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Thompson, Darlene Sent: Thu 11/20/2008 2:25 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board Amen, Oh, and just as a personal aside here: I'm really sorry that you didn't get elected for the .mobi thing as it seemed obvious for that to happen. I really just think that ALAC is trying to placate the other regions - which will just get us loaded down with people that don't know the job. I *hope* that Jose does a good job but I just see the two ALCRALO ALAC reps (who championed for him) as constantly complaining about language issues and getting nothing else done. Anyways, I'm just venting here. I just hope that you don't get discouraged and that you keep on with your e-mails. They are appreciated (at least by Evan and myself) even if you don't get much feedback. D ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John L Sent: Wed 11/19/2008 5:57 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does. A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com <http://www.johnlevine.com/> , ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ 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/>
but, then again, I'm starting to think that a switch-over of ALL positions (most especially my own) would be good every couple of years. One starts to just get too jaded and tired.
D
But alas, I think ICANN counts on that. People can only stand and rail at the gates for so long before they become jaded, disillusioned, or both and decide to go away to other venues. Then a new group of faces shows up, argues about the same things, and as Danny puts it, the process begins anew: "rinse and repeat." JP
Hear Hear! The IGF is the venue for other interests like access. Maybe we can redirect those users who are interested in issues that do not fit into ICANN's narrow mandate towards the IGF. Jacqueline John L wrote:
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
Well, sure. ICANN's job is to manage the DNS root and to hand out IP space. People have all sorts of other concerns, but they're not what ICANN does.
A more relevant question is why, in view of ICANN's extremely narrow job, it costs $100M/yr to do it.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Olivier, Patrick, this time let me not boast Nick's lack of official answer and try to help in documenting the france@large experience in terms of ICANN attendance. The very first action of france@large was for its two founders to attend the ICANN Marina del Rey meeting at their personnal expense. It took me eight years to build france@large with some active but often temporary help - and we still are only around 80 interactors (with less traffic due to Staff's attitude). Let me reminde that I think know about "@large-ing": I created Intlnet 30 years ago as the ICANN of the time. I created france@large at a good time (ICANN BoD @large election, with the other candidates - 2000). I was active at the GNSO/GA under Roberto and Harald and then Dabby, and WG-Review (and a candidate to the BoD - 2001) and elected at Joop's IDNO. I co-created icannatlarge.org (started by Esther Dyson, a combative first ICANN Chair), being then elected on its panel, and organizing its last election that more or less lead to ALAC creation. I incorporated (2004) ATLARGE (and restrained it to give ALAC more lee way, exposure and chances within the ICANN structure). The first difficulty I observed is the ambiguous position of ISOC irt. ICANN and IETF. The two logic everyone would understand easily are that: - either ICANN be an ISOC affiliate, as IETF is. In that logic the Internet ordinary users would find a home and support in ISOC, while more active users in different area would find a forum and a representation in ALAC. - or IETF has nothing to do with ISOC. This would mean that ISOC could be an ICANN user constituency and/or a part of ALAC. Since the France experience seems to be the most complex, sophisticated or advanced, I think it is worth to analyse it to the ALAC and ALS common benefit. I copy Louis Pouzin. Sebastien Bachollet is this list. They can correct me. This year we observed in France that: 1. france@large first decided to come out, due to the coming of ICANN. It was actually to help ISOC France organizing its welcome and get the local community attending. The Staff's attitude was politically foreseeable due. Actually, I considered it a test to know if ATLARGE had also to come out (it will). Nevertheless, we played our role and have some reasons to believe that we helped the Paris record attendance. 2. during the year ISOC France collapsed, mostly because it only defended "user centric and 'American' values", instead of "people centric" (cf. WSIS) ones, and did not permit user to affirm international positions. There are various local ego and political reasons to this collapse, but there obviously are also general reasons. IMHO, the main one, I do regret as an ISOC Sustaining Member, is the poor HQ response to the situation. Something which hampered some of us was the low readability of the joint ISOC/ICANN position regarding the NonCom and ALAC. Why are there ISOC Chapters in both? Why has ISOC clearly specified (European Meeting) that they wanted to keep ALAC in DNS issues to protect their own "market"? 3. this reflected a general "Refoundation" agreement among the majority of the French CS active Members. There were however three visions: - a more organised ISOC France, continuing to gather the two other approaches with new by-laws (Sebastien Bachollet). This was reasonable, but it was defeated by ISOC HQ asking a French candidate to the Board to remove himself, making ISOC HQ lose democratic credibility and the ISOC Chapter BoD lose legitimacy. - rejuvenating of ISOC in France : a clear come back to the ISOC principle and values, as a practical inspiration to the Internet development (My position). This included provincial Chapters and the support of world thematic chapters (IPv6 Users, Externets and TLDs, Multilinguistics, etc.) for an alliance between users (daily operations) and @large lead users from france@large (I chair) and a rejuvenated ATLARGE. The target was to jointly correct Internet misgovernance issues and sort out the CS unbalance between professionals and users. My candidacy open site http://refondation-isoc.fr has now become http://cisoc.fr as a French cultural fellow-citizen proposition to generalize good governance principles upon ISO or "Open Network Standards" norms - ethically generalizing and extending RFCs and other standards. - a common house for the French Internet citizens. The interest is not network centric, nor user (customer) but citizen centric. The name they chose Louis Pouzin proposed, is very clear. It is not the Internet Society in France. But, "la Société Française de l'Internet", the French Society on the Internet. Their interest is in real French and local life through an adequate Interneting, in agreement with their vision and the observed life of the society. Their target is not a "Chapter", but a large association, with thousand(s) Members. As a france@large Chair, I fully support their project because it is complementary of @large and ISOC, however they made all of us to waste a lof of time, efforts and opportunities and, in the process, they did boycott the ICANN meeting and the World Internet Week de Paris. Based on this experience I can evaluate their deeper commonality is a vision of the Internet as an English ASCII US data network legacy they have to adapt, instead of a service adapted to them. Why then to attend its meetings (ICANN, IETF, ISOC) when you do not speak perfect English and want the Internet to multinationalize. You know the project is to internationalize it enough to sell your country/culture names for K$ 185 + 75 @ annum to foreign interests that will screw them up. From my experience, when we were still discussing the ML-DNS consideration at IETF/WG-IDNABIS and got Nick's unofficial answer, it was much easier to get 10 person joining an anti-ICANN demonstration in front of the Hotel, than one to attend inside! And most who came carried a smile about the way "these Americans" does it. Not that we would do it better, but most probably different. I do not see why it would be any different with Egyptian. Only that they have 4,000 years more of experience about semiotics than ourselves. jfc At 09:52 19/11/2008, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Have you considered that perhaps ICANN has been beating the new gTLD drum for so long, the local community simply has other concerns?
This, to me, is a proof that ICANN is just not inline with the challenges facing the Internet today. Prompted by a small group of companies which are solely domain-name registries/registrars, ICANN is dazed by a complete focus on domain name issues and tries to kid itself that other issues such as IPv6 migration/transition for example, are none of its business. Have you asked yourself whether Mr. Egyptian Joe or Egyptian Co. Inc. is bothered about domain names? Domain names are a rich man's game.
Evan, with all due respect, you should not be "disgusted" that the local community did not attend. Much rather, you should be concerned and we should all work together to try and find out why it ended up this way.
Warm regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D Global Information Highway Ltd http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: <kieren.mccarthy@icann.org>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:25:19 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
wrote:
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF.
I agree with Evan.
I will add that the local Internet community's concerns may not fit
into
ICANN's narrow mandate. When we tried to outreach to the local community for the ICANN meeting in Luxembourg, we found out that the individual users concern at the time was mainly the high price of broadband access, not the allocation of globally unique identifiers on the Internet. 3 years later, it still remains a challenge at the ALS level to get meaningful input from our membership on issues that are within the mandate of ICANN. So much for local Internet community involvement.
I think it is crucial not to turn the ALAC, RALOs and At-large into a generic end user caucus on all Internet issues. We need to remain focused if we want to be relevant.
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
participants (17)
-
admin＠isoc.sd -
Andres Piazza -
carlos aguirre -
cheryl＠hovtek.com.au -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
JFC Morfin -
John L -
José Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
McTim -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola