Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
At 10/08/2019 04:00 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread. The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual non-registrant end-users. The Bylaws do not restrict us to non-registrants. However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in spite they are experience in corporate governance. There are two things at play here. 1) The At-Large web and wiki presence is daunting and needs real, focused work; 2) ICANN has a narrow focus and may well not be for everyone, no matter how good or technical they are, or how well we do (someday??) present ourselves. Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson. I'm not sure. I think our challenge is to put things in the terms that a relatively small number of people, each of whom UNDERSTAND their individual user perspective, can contribute. A world like ours always needs champions to speak of behalf of their larger constituencies. But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't see this is happening. And that is the substance of Issue #2 of the At-Large Review - and work is just about to begin on that! Alan I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email. Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Olivier, While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree, I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first principles: advocating for the interests of individual end users and, when there's a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, we side with the non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax. How we determine those interests is a separate and important question for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first principles or we will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need to have the discipline to let things go that are already being said or are not directly relevant to the end user experience around the world. Just my thoughts. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> >; Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Dear Evan, I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything it does - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review and it's too late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember the Wars of Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I invite these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in and help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the incredibly talented people that have done so recently in this Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of time contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes. When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen. The world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice or nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them in a box/jail. Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping ourselves into a frenzy. Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants. That was my original point -- That there is a body already within ICANN representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory leaving ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant end-users. That the body charged with representing registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC to be remiss in ITS duty. The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion Internet users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even assuming only three domains per registrant (and we know that is very far from reality), registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a problem because of its high proportion of self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against the non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply don't share their experience. The original theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way through which non-registrants would be able to participate in large numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out to be self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but without the perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never own a domain. And without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably it's already shot and needs a reboot). A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out: The NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections non-registrants as at least a token effort at balance. ALAC outreach needs to find people who are interested in end user issues who have no interest in buying domains. ALAC itself must commit to understand its issues through a non-registrant lens before choosing to comment on them. Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather than its own elitist sense of what is right for end users. I daresay that the priorities of the billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from ALAC's current guesses. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ 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.
Inline On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 01:59 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 10/08/2019 04:00 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote:
Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread.
The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual non-registrant end-users.
The Bylaws do not restrict us to non-registrants.
Yes I know but intentionally I included the "non-registrant" to emphasise this particular point given the overall structure of ICANN.
However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in spite they are experience in corporate governance.
There are two things at play here. 1) The At-Large web and wiki presence is daunting and needs real, focused work; 2) ICANN has a narrow focus and may well not be for everyone, no matter how good or technical they are, or how well we do (someday??) present ourselves.
In my example it was 1) according to the feedback I got from this outsider. They expected to read a certain simplified issue in one single flow of concept all throughout than branching into different elaborated pages. (An initiative to work on)
Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson.
I'm not sure. I think our challenge is to put things in the terms that a relatively small number of people, each of whom UNDERSTAND their individual user perspective, can contribute. A world like ours always needs champions to speak of behalf of their larger constituencies.
Agree under the assumption that they are not only understanding their individual user perspective but not attempting to push an agenda, if it happens that they're in affiliation with other stakeholders.
But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't see this is happening.
And that is the substance of Issue #2 of the At-Large Review - and work is just about to begin on that!
Fingers crossed and I volunteered in one related WG.
Alan
I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email.
Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid. Best wishes to all, Nadira
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Olivier, While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree, I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first principles: advocating for the interests of individual end users and, when there's a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, we side with the non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax.
How we determine those interests is a separate and important question for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first principles or we will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need to have the discipline to let things go that are already being said or are not directly relevant to the end user experience around the world.
Just my thoughts. Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com >; Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
Dear Evan,
I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything it does - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review and it's too late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember the Wars of Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I invite these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in and help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the incredibly talented people that have done so recently in this Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of time contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes.
When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen. The world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice or nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them in a box/jail.
Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping ourselves into a frenzy.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants.
That was my original point -- That there is a body already within ICANN representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory leaving ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant end-users. That the body charged with representing registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC to be remiss in ITS duty.
The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion Internet users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even assuming only three domains per registrant (and we know that is very far from reality), registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a problem because of its high proportion of self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against the non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply don't share their experience. The original theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way through which non-registrants would be able to participate in large numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out to be self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but without the perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never own a domain. And without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably it's already shot and needs a reboot).
A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out: The NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections non-registrants as at least a token effort at balance. ALAC outreach needs to find people who are interested in end user issues who have no interest in buying domains. ALAC itself must commit to understand its issues through a non-registrant lens before choosing to comment on them. Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather than its own elitist sense of what is right for end users. I daresay that the priorities of the billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from ALAC's current guesses.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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.
- At the end of the day, anyone who enters any of the constituencies will need to take a capacity building and transition into understanding how things work and the diverse content that exists and how to make sense of it. - This is why initiatives such as the Capacity building initiatives within ICANN were created and it has always the goal to make the information as simplified and accessible. - To give credit to the webmasters, the website and model that it uses including the wiki has almost everything there is to know about governance, policies and procedures, scientific, financial reports etc. - Without dedicated mentoring and capacity building newcomers can easily get overwhelmed and lost. - To address this there has to be several attempts at providing this transitionary capacity building and mentoring several times a year depending on an analysis on new memberships that can easily be done virtually and through existing systems and innovative new approaches. - Everyone who has entered ICANN at some stage has had their hand held to some extent. Many thanks, Sala
Hello Sala, Your points are an ideals situation but we're talking about a volunteer environment particularly in At-large, that limits of how much time of volunteerism could be afforded. Inline On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 07:44 Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < sala@pasifikanexus.nu> wrote:
- At the end of the day, anyone who enters any of the constituencies will need to take a capacity building and transition into understanding how things work and the diverse content that exists and how to make sense of it.
The capacity building provided by the constituency are on an ongoing basis
but for newcommers would be of a shock particularly to those whose English as a second language. Reading this thread myself needed to translate some of the words or even trying to understand the slang used. Imagine listening to ICANN terminologis and acronyms from a senior community member during the learning curve. That needs lots of dedication and interest from the members.
- This is why initiatives such as the Capacity building initiatives within ICANN were created and it has always the goal to make the information as simplified and possible.
Agree, but still need lots of efforts by the entrant and the community.
Also no one knows all.
- To give credit to the webmasters, the website and model that it uses including the wiki has almost everything there is to know about governance, policies and procedures, scientific, financial reports etc.
I aslo command the effort of all involved in developing the website and
populating the Wiki. If we did a quick survey of how many of the current At-large members knows how to navigate around of ICANN Wiki you will be surprised of the exact percentage. On this issue, I hope that all ATLAS III participants are asked to update or create their SOI and even add their reports to be familiarized of ICANN working platform.
- Without dedicated mentoring and capacity building newcomers can easily get overwhelmed and lost.
True, given the assumption that the mentors knows well their own
constituency and able to give the right mentorship.
- To address this there has to be several attempts at providing this transitionary capacity building and mentoring several times a year depending on an analysis on new memberships that can easily be done virtually and through existing systems and innovative new approaches.
An excellent suggestion but needs lots of time and resources.
- Everyone who has entered ICANN at some stage has had their hand held to some extent.
Only if they have the interest to reach the right information or the right
person. Many thanks,
Sala
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Nadira Alaraj -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro