Though I am focussed on family matters the next month or so, and not attending LA, I remain supportive of the Summit concept, and I dont view the idea as "dead". The question is really whether this is a compelling concept for us within At Large. I believe that we can still explore making the case of the value of this to ICANN and beyond, Be well MM On 10/4/07, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:

Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

We have been recently informed by Nick that the Summit, as it is presently developed as described at http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/At-Large_Global_Summit http://www.icannwiki.org/wiki/ICANN_Ensemble is officially dead, by decree of ICANN staff. No staff support will be offered and no funding would be made available for anyone to attend.

That shouldn't necessarily kill the idea. What was the total travel subsidy budget? It should be possible to solicit meeting sponsors to help cover some of these costs. As far as staff support goes, I'm certain that this shortfall can be made up from within the community. It would be really cool if ICANN helped out with this (I'd almost consider it part of their mandate, but that's another story) but they aren't. So let's make it happen anyways.

I'm not 100% up on the events this far, but as far as I can see, this is just a plan to have an ALAC meeting at the ICANN meeting writ large. If they are able to accomodate the GNSO Public Forum, then they should be able to accomodate this on similar terms (i.e. space, staff support, etc.)

-r

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

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org

Hi Adam,

The summit is a great idea. Agree with Ross, it's not something to let drop. But I'm also not well up on events so far, what's been planned and discussed and what's not.

The details that have been done to date are on the ICANNWiki at http://www.icannwiki.org/index.php/At-Large_Global_Summit and something resembling a summit outline is at http://www.icannwiki.org/index.php/ICANN_Ensemble

How many people might be expected to attend? How many parallel sessions (i.e. how many rooms for how many people for how many days.)

The original plan was for one person per ALS to be funded. After staff objected on a number of levels, we suggested that it may be reasonable to only fund delegates from ALSs which had demonstrated they had done at least minimal preparatory work to familiarize themselves with relevant issues.

What's ICANN's and the ALAC's budget cycle? The only ICANN organization I've worked with closely is the NomCom, and budget for that runs July to July. How would something the Summit get into the budget planning process?

ICANN staff have repeatedly refused any budget related inquiries.

If not Paris then the next stop would be somewhere in Africa, which makes travel more expensive (less of a hub.) After that Latin America, Asia Pacific and Europe as the three meetings for 2009.

Indeed, one of our considerations for holding it at the Paris event was the city's status as a major airline hub, meaning that holding a summit there would be far less expensive than at most other cities (indeed, how many African delegates would need to fly through Paris to anywhere else?) Asia Pacific is only suitable if the meeting is in a major hub such as Hong Kong or Singapore, and even then would be more expensive for travel overall compared to a major city in Europe or North America. This essentially means that, if Paris doesn't work the next opportunity to _economically_ stage a Summit would be late 2009. - Evan

To me, the idea of an Internet User's "Summit" is not really the right idea in these times. The reason is that there is room for only a few at a summit. The Internet allows every user a seat at the table--everyone is a publisher--everyone has a blog--everyone is a video producer-- so everyone must be a summit attendee-- and that is the energy we should think how to engage. Internet users per se don't really seem interested in bottom-up hierarchical things, anymore, at least from what I have seen. The interest is in ad-hoc, flash mob, street team sorts of things. I think Internet users are more about what their individual needs are rather than some arbitrary geographic needs. It's pretty clear to me that ICANN listens as much to any body of individual users as much as it listens to whatever ALAC has to say. In fact, an outside "constituency" may even have MORE influence than ALAC/At Large does-- witness the pressure put on ICANN to drop negotiations with .XXX when the US Department of Commerce got all those emails from the Christian right. So... what I am saying is that maybe we should be looking at a very loose , lightweight *something else*-- Internet users union? That could quickly coalesce around certain issues-- and these might be ICANN issues or they might be issues outside of ICANN-- but they are Internet user issues. If "everyone's at-large" then let's figure out how to get "everyone" at a summit. And of course I mean a virtual space. I don't think I'm thinking of Second Life, and I don't necessarily think it's a wiki either, thought it could have wiki tendencies. It's more like a FaceBook, with Groups. Then I think there needs to be a donated button on every search engine and major portal "Internet User? Join the Union and speak out"-- that leads people back to where they can find each other and raise issues and find others interested in those issues. I'm thinking of something like Epinions for the Internet-- issues, sites, service providers, etc etc. Once the energy is together, finding the right agencies to do something about those issues becomes the next step. Sometimes it will be ICANN but other times it is going to be somewhere else. How is this funded? I don't know, but there are plenty of models out there. http://www.uriica.org/ has been working in this direction for awhile- doubtless there are others. What is possibly different about what I'm saying is that hierarchical is dead, it is the Individual User who wants a say --The Internet user just wants mail to go thru and websites to load and doesn't care to know a thing about DNS.--And he/she has probably never heard of ICANN-- so we need to go where those users are (search engines, portals, facebook, youtube...) and engage them, give them a voice, and don't make them go through a series of hierarchical hoops to be heard. Just my thoughts. Jean Armour Polly Ex-ALAC NA

Jean Armour Polly wrote:

To me, the idea of an Internet User's "Summit" is not really the right idea in these times. The reason is that there is room for only a few at a summit. The Internet allows every user a seat at the table--everyone is a publisher--everyone has a blog--everyone is a video producer-- so everyone must be a summit attendee-- and that is the energy we should think how to engage. I disagree for a number of reasons:

1) There' s more than a little rich-world arrogance in the assertion that everyone is a publisher. Heck, "everyone" doesn't have a phone yet and certainly "everyone" does not have good Internet connections or even freedom of expression. The subset of computer users who already have something to say on ICANN issues, let alone the knowledge of how to self-publish those views, is I daresay a tiny fraction of the public whose views the At-Large framework was designed to engage. 2) It takes a hardcore computer geek (or a devious cost cutter) to assert that virtual conversations can completely take the place of looking someone in the eye. The fact that we can't bring everyone together is not an excuse to refuse to bring anyone together. If ICANN itself believed so much in the power of virtual communications, it wouldn't see the value in holding three in-person meetings a year. And if ICANN's various constituencies believed in the absolute power of virtual communications, they wouldn't be attending these meetings at their own expense. Given the amount of politics involved in ICANN, non-verbal communications is most certainly in play -- if we ignore that, we jeopardize our place at the table. 3) Like it or not, the At-Large structure is based on a pyramid-type framework that depends on a representative system through ALSs. As far as I know there is only one region -- not coincidentally one of the rich-world regions -- that even accommodates individuals unassociated with an ALS. I am not interested in debating the merits of previously-discarded models of public participation; I merely submit that the Summit is completely consistent with the model that exists. Indeed, the Summit intended to be a tool to improve the ability of ALSs to inform their members and advise on policy -- a fulfillment of the ideals behind which the current At-Large infrastructure was created. 4) Let's be honest -- the specific issues ICANN grapples with are beyond the grasp or interest of most people. Most of those who do care, as Beau has suggested, do so at a higher level -- they want to see spam reduced but have no idea if ICANN even has a role in spam eradication (let alone have any policy advice for it or even know what ICANN is). The ALSs that have stepped forward have indicated an interest in being informed and making policy. Volunteering as an At-Large participant (that is, without the kind of vested interests held by ICANN's other constituencies) doesn't quite have the same public-service profile as giving your time to Oxfam, raising funds to cure a disease, or service in your local renter's association. One can assert that the whole world is invited to ICANN, but it takes a special kind of oblivion to believe that the masses will swarm to participate just as soon as we find a way to let them. Chances are that most people who have found personal interest in ICANN issues has already found a way -- and maybe a constituency or ALS through which -- to express them.

It's pretty clear to me that ICANN listens as much to any body of individual users as much as it listens to whatever ALAC has to say. In fact, an outside "constituency" may even have MORE influence than ALAC/At Large does-- witness the pressure put on ICANN to drop negotiations with .XXX when the US Department of Commerce got all those emails from the Christian right. And yet it was the DOC -- not ICANN itself -- that received the complaints. It was the DOC, not the Christian groups directly, that put pressure on ICANN. Indeed, you've helped prove my point that ICANN's is certainly NOT not a direct participation model.

In any case, I readily admit that every other constituency in ICANN appears to hold more sway than ALAC at the current time; the Summit is a partial attempt to repair that situation.

So... what I am saying is that maybe we should be looking at a very loose , lightweight *something else*-- Internet users union? That could quickly coalesce around certain issues-- and these might be ICANN issues or they might be issues outside of ICANN-- but they are Internet user issues. Maybe we could call these groups "Internet Societies". And maybe they could have chapters in many countries, states and provinces. And maybe some of those "Internet Societies" might be have an interest in becoming ALSs.

That's a really good idea. I wonder why nobody has thought of that before.

What is possibly different about what I'm saying is that hierarchical is dead You may assert that all you want, assertions do not make it so. The audience ICANN wants to reach goes far beyond those with the skill to blog or even an account on (or desire to use or even awareness of) Facebook.

we need to go where those users are (search engines, portals, facebook, youtube...) and engage them, give them a voice, and don't make them go through a series of hierarchical hoops to be heard. At last we agree on something. Giving the public a voice does indeed require active engagement. But that engagement will only come from grassroots organizations, or as you call them the " hierarchical hoops". Expecting informed opinion from the public without participation from those intermediaries is wishful thinking at best.

- Evan PS: If you ask any person to identify themselves, they'll use their name, their nationality, maybe religion, profession, language or culture. Nobody identifies themselves as an "Internet User" any more than they identify themselves as a "Ford driver"; it happens, but only from the deeply enthusiastic.

Jean, Izumi, and all. I see the natural idea of such a forum to be driven through the Internet Society. It fits perfect into this: The Internet Society ... * Facilitates open development of standards, protocols, administration and the technical infrastructure of the Internet * Supports education in developing countries specifically, and wherever the need exists * Promotes professional development and builds community to foster participation and leadership in areas important to the evolution of the Internet. * Provides reliable information about the Internet * Provides forums for discussion of issues that affect Internet evolution, development and use -- technical, commercial, societal, etc. * Fosters an environment for international cooperation, community, and a culture that enables self-governance to work * Serves as a focal point for cooperative efforts to promote the Internet as a positive tool to benefit all people throughout the world * Provides management and coordination for on-strategy initiatives and outreach efforts -- humanitarian, educational, societal, etc. Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way.

...

What's ICANN's and the ALAC's budget cycle? The only ICANN organization I've worked with closely is the NomCom, and budget for that runs July to July. How would something the Summit get into the budget planning process?    ICANN staff have repeatedly refused any budget related inquiries.

That is a total misstatement. So far this year, there was a teleconference with Doug Brent at which we went through the entire ICANN budgeting process with slides, as well as a physical presentation by him in San Juan, at which many of the NA ALS members were present. The handouts and slides from that presentation are many and very detailed on the budget. The ICANN budget runs from July to June. Most budgeting activity begins in December/Jan with regard to at large. Currently some regions are already looking at workplans for the year which will inform the At Large input into the budgeting process. The budget is run and administered by ICANN staff, and at large input is requested. There are differences of opinion in how much that input is taken on board. Staff has also consistently sent to ALAC (redacted - no salary info) budget/actual documents. Nick, Doug and Denise have always answered. We may not like their answers, but they do respond, and respond rapidly! Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09