Dear friends, while I was Chair of LACRALO and also as an ALAC Member, I made some proposals that on one occasion a member of the Board said he loved. Unfortunately they never progressed. They went beyond the metrics that I had as Chair. An ALS from a single country, reached more than 15,000 end users in their country with a single event, with the same message (specific to the ALS). We always say our ALSs are inactive, and it is not true. They are inactive for ICANN due to poor administration or communication from the RALO.

If we want to spread something to universities or other channels, I do not rule out making an agreement (long term). But our ALSs can contact them directly and carry the message from ICANN. It already does this with its own things, we just have to tell it from ALAC that we want to transmit and generate a homogeneous message, unique for all RALOS.

For example, we must increase the implementation of DNS SEC due to its importance for end users. From ALAC, in coordination with each NIC, a document or presentation must be generated for each ALS to disseminate locally in universities and internet service providers, and companies with their own computing centers.

In addition, my metrics are from 2015. Today, ALS can reach many more local end users through social networks and their groups within them. I do not believe that this dissemination will be microscopic. Of course, I do not rule out continuing with 1l 1.3 in the long term. But I would like to see concrete measures and forms proposed.

Kind regards

 

Alberto

 

De: Vanda Scartezini via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Enviado el: domingo, 20 de octubre de 2024 18:43
Para: cpwg@icann.org; maureen.hilyard@gmail.com
Asunto: [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy

 

 

 

From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>
Date: Sunday, 20 October 2024 at 18:42
To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy

After 23 years of doing my best to spread the word about ICANN and its agenda, I agree that we only reach our microscopic world besides the very one of ICANN that is already touched by all other constituencies.  For instance, we have added our Software Association, a large enough organization to BC under GNSO to add value and get some small support from them for some initiatives. Even so, as Maureen states we see the majority of our effort not adding as much value as we expected to our local community, even though sometimes we do add a lot of value to ICANN.

It's nice to see people engaging to find some solution…

Vanda

From: Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Saturday, 19 October 2024 at 12:59
To: David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy

Thank you everyone for this very interesting discussion which is particularly relevant to our community and the value of our ALSes to carry out the outreach role that ICANN has given us (on top of our important contribution to their policy development processes). As David points out, while it is the traditional role for our ALS volunteers to educate and advocate for important end-user perspectives on the wide range of issues that ICANN throws our way, we have only been able to do so within whatever local resources we might have, which realistically limits our range of influence to the "microscopic" extent that Bill so rightly describes

 

The "strategic alliances" of ICANN's strategic plan are the purview of the global stakeholder group.who rarely share their role or resources with any of our local groups, despite still relying on them in many instances to initiate influential contacts. Unless a RALO was able to get an ABR to support the development of education and advocacy resources for local distribution, requests for official resource material for ALSes to take out to their communities to ensure that the messaging was accurately conveyed, usually took so long to become  available, that it was almost irrelevant by the time Org's communication team was ready to help.. 

 

Org takes it upon themselves to be the conveyors of important information at a global level and resource themselves accordingly. The value of the unsupported outreach of our multi stakeholder volunteer base continues to spiral downwards.  What chance is there for the At-Large community to become more effective if we are not supported to make a more meaningful contribution to ICANN's communication role at a global level, especially when we have the personnel to do so, and probably more effectively?

 

On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 3:09 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Just adding a few thoughts to the excellent conversation …

 

I agree with Bill that reaching a significant portion of the end users with current ICANN and ICANN At-Large structures and processes is simply not possible.

 

This does not mean that end user “reach” is not important … nor does it mean that better end user reach is not possible. We just have to be smart on how to maximize end user reach with limited resources. I believe the concept of “building strategic channel partners” is the solution to the important problem of how to have better end user reach using limited resources. 

 

For instance, investing in the creation of strategic channel partnerships with educational and library institutions to extend our reach to end users. It doesn’t help in the short run, but the problem of effective end user reach has been with ICANN since day one. It might be time to stop ignoring it.

 

If we’re serious about solving this big problem then looking at the ICANN draft FY26-30 Strategic Plan might be a good place to start. The draft includes the general wording below which could be connected to our At-Large discussion on end user reach …

 

1.3 Expand strategic alliances to advocate for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. 

 

I believe the ICANN strategic plan would be strengthened if we added the phrase “... to educate and advocate ...”, since advocating doesn’t work well when other stakeholders don’t understand what ICANN does nor do they understand why it’s important. The idea of building strategic alliances with end user channel partners connects to the current conversation in our At-Large group.

 

I hope my thoughts add to our common understanding of the challenges we face reaching end users and possible paths for improvement in the future. 

 

Cheers

David

 

On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 2:26 AM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Yes, our ALSs reach "many end users" in the sense of large absolute numbers.  But as a percentage of the total end user population?  No.  "Microscopic" might better describe that number.

 

And that is really the point here.  Reaching a signifigant portion of the end users is simply not possible.  Convincing them to become knowledgeable about arcane details (and, to those outside ICANN, they are extremely arcane) regarding TLDs, even if we could reach them, is simply not going to happen.  Therefore, acting based on the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs is, in Olivier's words, blaming the victim. 

 

I would even go so far as to say that, by insisting on treating the two groups differently, ICANN is setting itself up for potentially quite expensive legal action down the road.  How we get around the legal restrictions on us is, of course, outside the realm of this discussion.  But I think our response would do well to at least mention that treating gTLDs and ccTLDs differently here could have unintended consequences. 

 

Bill Jouris 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

 

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:15 AM, Alberto Soto via CPWG

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.