Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position. From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto
Thanks, Roberto, Despite the fact that the consensus is a challenge to reach, Kindly note that the ALAC has several times reached consensus in their discussion. Furthermore, I have seen in the voting process of ALSes that discussions and deliberations are followed. I think the discussion would be "What is consensus?", How do you reach Consensus? What is the difference between Rough Consensus and Full Consensus? Clearly, there are points where the discussion has to get towards consensus though in reality, it is very difficult to get full consensus since there are many divergent views and opinions regarding certain discussions and topics. The ALAC has submitted Advice to the board - this is also known as the ALAC Advice and also we have an ALAC representative to the board who is constantly updating the community and also providing feedback to the board on various At-Large issues. Thanks Daniel K. Nanghaka ᐧ On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 13:19, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position. From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Roberto, On 14/06/2021 12:18, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position. This has happened on many occasions in the past. Whenever the At-Large Community and therefore the ALAC does not reach consensus, the topic under question is either not address in the Statement, or the Statement itself is not issued. When it comes to positions to take in a PDP, this has also happened on rare occasions in the past and the position was either amended to satisfy the majority or not the ALAC took no position - or defaulted to its default position that it had reached according to past ALAC advice.
So I do not see the issue of "no consensus" as either new, nor significant. The ALAC has processes to follow to reach consensus and sometimes there is no consensus, it's just a part of life. Now the issue which I found more significant, and mentioned by, I think it was Jonathan Zuck, on the call, was the notion that the ALAC position could be a "minority position". That has a deeper consequence. As a member of the ICANN SO/AC/SG/C microcosm, the ALAC is indeed just one of the organisations, thus if it hold a position by itself, it is in a minority and thus holds a "minority opinion". But it is possible to argue that the ALAC is representing the interests of end users, which is by now several billion people, thus the majority of people affected by the policy. We immediately land in the contested zone of "who do you represent" and "what is your legitimacy", "you can't represent end users", "you are a bunch of self-selected power hungry... yadda yadda yadda....." and the rest is history. Kindest regards, Olivier
Totally agree with you Olivier , I also think thart the main issue discussed during today session was the under representativity of ALAC within ICANN structures, board and PDP WG, although the impact of end-user in such ICANN structures, and the needs of technical and Business community to improve their DNS services based on end users needs. The ALAC diverse ideas, or nonconsensual voices as mentioned by our friend Gateano , is also an add values for ICANN activities. Chokri Le lun. 14 juin 2021 15:43, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Dear Roberto,
On 14/06/2021 12:18, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position.
This has happened on many occasions in the past. Whenever the At-Large Community and therefore the ALAC does not reach consensus, the topic under question is either not address in the Statement, or the Statement itself is not issued. When it comes to positions to take in a PDP, this has also happened on rare occasions in the past and the position was either amended to satisfy the majority or not the ALAC took no position - or defaulted to its default position that it had reached according to past ALAC advice.
So I do not see the issue of "no consensus" as either new, nor significant. The ALAC has processes to follow to reach consensus and sometimes there is no consensus, it's just a part of life.
Now the issue which I found more significant, and mentioned by, I think it was Jonathan Zuck, on the call, was the notion that the ALAC position could be a "minority position". That has a deeper consequence. As a member of the ICANN SO/AC/SG/C microcosm, the ALAC is indeed just one of the organisations, thus if it hold a position by itself, it is in a minority and thus holds a "minority opinion". But it is possible to argue that the ALAC is representing the interests of end users, which is by now several billion people, thus the majority of people affected by the policy. We immediately land in the contested zone of "who do you represent" and "what is your legitimacy", "you can't represent end users", "you are a bunch of self-selected power hungry... yadda yadda yadda....." and the rest is history.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 10:43, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Now the issue which I found more significant, and mentioned by, I think it was Jonathan Zuck, on the call, was the notion that the ALAC position could be a "minority position". That has a deeper consequence. As a member of the ICANN SO/AC/SG/C microcosm, the ALAC is indeed just one of the organisations, thus if it hold a position by itself, it is in a minority and thus holds a "minority opinion". But it is possible to argue that the ALAC is representing the interests of end users, which is by now several billion people, thus the majority of people affected by the policy. We immediately land in the contested zone of "who do you represent" and "what is your legitimacy", "you can't represent end users", "you are a bunch of self-selected power hungry... yadda yadda yadda....." and the rest is history.
This is not new; I have joined Olivier in the past at experiencing that playbook first hand: When we agree with the contracted parties: "You're a vital part of the process and your input is cherished" When we disagree: "Who the hell are you? Fifteen self-selected "experts" who pretend to know what the world wants? What a joke" This is why I have always seen working cross-community activity with some mistrust. Our opinions really matter if they're in sync with the common wisdom, else the common wisdom falls back on "who the hell are you?". Direct advice to the Board is the only way for the end-user point of view to be directly expressed, not submitted for rework by those parties directly impacted by what we have to say. In "their" consensus we are the minority view, which is why it is an unreliable path for our positions. This is one of the reasons I've been pushing for public surveys by ALAC, to help get us direct feedback to better inform the 15 what's important outside the bubble. But there is more that we can do; to this end ALAC really needs to radically change its outreach approach from "get involved" to "we need to hear from you". Getting more people is the easy way out; we attract more people to share the load and then we expect them to learn the inner workings of ICANN before they can meaningfully get involved. OTOH, "we need to hear from you" forces us who are here to figure out the right questions, how to ask them and how to analyze the results. The current ALAC engagement approach is futile, expensive, and distracts from policy development. Getting 200 people to fill out a questionnaire once a year is far more valuable IMO than signing one ALS, and easier to achieve. Addressing "who the hell are you" is the single biggest long-term challenge to clarifying an end-user agenda within ALAC and then advocating it within ICANN. Developing a solution should be the #1 non-policy priority within ALAC. Cheers, - Evan PS: The "consensus" thing is a non issue. In this world there is little that is universally agreed, even climate change action and vaccinations have small but loud (and sometimes well monied) detractors. Acknowledging this diversity is a feature; it ensures that decision-making is as well-informed as possible. If we do nothing more than identify a majority view but still account for the minorities, we are doing a substantial service to those we seek to inform.
The bylaw mandate is clear and unambiguous; ALAC is to represent the interests of end-users to the Board. All else -- PDPs, CCWGs and all the other alphabet soup -- is and must be secondary. Its participation in the rest of these groups may be useful but cannot undermine the primary task of informing the Board. In these cases ALAC sets its own frames of references, its own definitions, and its own assumptions; it is not, and must not, be biased by of the pressures of other constituencies. The contracted parties give ICANN its money, but the world at large (who will never buy a domain) gives ICANN its legitimacy. Let's please not forget this. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 06:19, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position. From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ 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.
I agree that we should have this discussion. It's unfortunate to have it in a public forum because it really has to do with how the ALAC and the At-Large community operates. Let's do it! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:18:57 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] ALAC Advice Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position.
From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto
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.
I think the session was beneficial in exploring the different views in relation to the At-Large weight within the ecosystem. In my view our role in improving our impact relies mostly on the extent at which we can use the current model and structure to increase our weight. This is not only about consensus, but other elements like outreach and how to make the bottom up model work in an optimal manner are also important. Goran mentioned two or three ways in which org contributes to enhancing At-Large impact and Leon's discussion was also important because it highlighted the importance of certain elements like the public interest. We have been previously discussing consensus within At-Large at the CPWG and we had a capacity building webinar by Melissa All Good in that regard, we need to continue what we already started. Best Hadia From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck via CPWG Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 7:25 PM To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [CPWG] ALAC Advice I agree that we should have this discussion. It's unfortunate to have it in a public forum because it really has to do with how the ALAC and the At-Large community operates. Let's do it! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:18:57 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] ALAC Advice Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem" we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position.
From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto
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.
+1 Jonathan We need to establish our own approach to consensus building within At-Large that takes account of more voices of endusers, as Evin suggests. Maybe we have not been effective in our attempts to truly get the views of end-users. As we are attempting within our ccTLD models session @ICANN71, we need to get Internet user views about systems and processes that they are experiencing but with perhaps no understanding about why these processes and policies exist - for example, people who can't understand why they are being impacted and experiencing strange things happening to them on the internet - those who have never heard about "DNS Abuse" but are certainly experiencing it. The Boards mandate for At-Large is to get ICANN's messages out to our communities so our first focus is on getting our ALSes and individual members "engaged with the ICANN process" and its policies. Surely our "legitimacy" to contribute to the discussions that we have with other sections of the ICANN community needs to come from those who have NOT been instructed to consider ICANN expectations first and foremost. Maybe we need to be canvassing the views of people BEFORE they enter ICANN and then asking them after a period of time about what they found helpful about actually being part of the ICANN process. This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on. An early morning reflection on a great discussion topic. Thank you Roberto. Maureen On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, 5:25 am Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I agree that we should have this discussion. It's unfortunate to have it in a public forum because it really has to do with how the ALAC and the At-Large community operates. Let's do it! Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2021 6:18:57 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [CPWG] ALAC Advice
Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position. From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ 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.
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on — This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission. Best, Yrjö
Agree. +1 Yrjö -ed On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:09 PM Yrjö Länsipuro via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on
— This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö _______________________________________________ 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.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on
— This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö
Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies. -ed On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on
— This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
+1 Eduardo and we are lucky enough to have people in these institutions to find out what might be relevant to us. On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:07 AM Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies.
-ed
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro < yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on
— This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
I am wondering if we could approach the problem from the other end. If we know what are the questions to ask, we could approach academia to work together. I am working under the assumption that (some) academia would like to have a practical case to work on rather than work on abstract business cases. On top of that, we have, if I understand correctly, also some budget for financing research - once we have discussed and agreed what are the questions to ask. Cheers, R.
On 14.06.2021, at 23:06, Eduardo Diaz via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies.
-ed
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com <mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on — This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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.
I agree Roberto. When all is said and done, they are the researchers.. and Jonathan is keen to give the task to people who know what they are doing. But then, it takes us right back to the beginning of our discussion on the topic when Alejandro asked us to ensure we know what we want to ask. M On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:35 AM Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
I am wondering if we could approach the problem from the other end.
If we know what are the questions to ask, we could approach academia to work together. I am working under the assumption that (some) academia would like to have a practical case to work on rather than work on abstract business cases.
On top of that, we have, if I understand correctly, also some budget for financing research - once we have discussed and agreed what are the questions to ask.
Cheers, R.
On 14.06.2021, at 23:06, Eduardo Diaz via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies.
-ed
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro < yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on
— This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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.
Definitely the first step Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 5:38:55 PM To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] ALAC Advice I agree Roberto. When all is said and done, they are the researchers.. and Jonathan is keen to give the task to people who know what they are doing. But then, it takes us right back to the beginning of our discussion on the topic when Alejandro asked us to ensure we know what we want to ask. M On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:35 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> wrote: I am wondering if we could approach the problem from the other end. If we know what are the questions to ask, we could approach academia to work together. I am working under the assumption that (some) academia would like to have a practical case to work on rather than work on abstract business cases. On top of that, we have, if I understand correctly, also some budget for financing research - once we have discussed and agreed what are the questions to ask. Cheers, R. On 14.06.2021, at 23:06, Eduardo Diaz via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies. -ed On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>> wrote: On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on — This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission. Best, Yrjö _______________________________________________ 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. -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear all, As an academic who does empirical (survey) research, I would like to note that running large, international studies (to ensure diversity and sufficiently high n) is far from cheap. Questions need to be set, translated, verified, etc. Usually, there are costs associated with fielding surveys, etc. A recent study I was involved in was similar in some ways; dozens of authors, many grants, etc. My “sub team" spent significant resources on running the survey in one country. While I truly think doing such barometer surveys would be important to figure out people’s preferences, a significant budget is needed to set things up and keep this going. Unfortunately, this is not something that academics can achieve without considerable, long-term grants. In short, academics would likely be interested but lack the resources to conduct research at the scale and geographical diversity required. All the best Laurin
On Jun 15, 2021, at 01:00, Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Definitely the first step
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 5:38:55 PM To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] ALAC Advice
I agree Roberto. When all is said and done, they are the researchers.. and Jonathan is keen to give the task to people who know what they are doing. But then, it takes us right back to the beginning of our discussion on the topic when Alejandro asked us to ensure we know what we want to ask.
M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:35 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote: I am wondering if we could approach the problem from the other end.
If we know what are the questions to ask, we could approach academia to work together. I am working under the assumption that (some) academia would like to have a practical case to work on rather than work on abstract business cases.
On top of that, we have, if I understand correctly, also some budget for financing research - once we have discussed and agreed what are the questions to ask.
Cheers, R.
On 14.06.2021, at 23:06, Eduardo Diaz via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Valid point Maurren! Part of the work that we should do is research the researches and see where we can find synergies.
-ed
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 4:56 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Yrjo Im sure universities are researching enduser issues, but are they the questions that we would ask of endusers - when their purpose is more academic? M
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 8:09 AM Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 14. Jun 2021, at 22.03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: --- This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on — This sort of research of end-user problems, needs and wishes is being done, I’m sure, at universities here and there around the world. ALS’s could be our net for catching results that are relevant to the ICANN mission.
Best,
Yrjö _______________________________________________ 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.
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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.
This is a valuable conversation, thanks to Hadia and Roberto for starting it. Strongly support Evan in the “what do you need from us” approach. Not sure we’re there yet in terms of a CPWG decision, but we could use our developing academic engagement network to leverage these efforts. Happy to share thoughts or proposals on how this could be done, including external funding. Should we be ready to set up an End User Research WG please put my name on the list. Great thread all, thanks for this, Joanna From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard via CPWG Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:04 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] ALAC Advice +1 Jonathan We need to establish our own approach to consensus building within At-Large that takes account of more voices of endusers, as Evin suggests. Maybe we have not been effective in our attempts to truly get the views of end-users. As we are attempting within our ccTLD models session @ICANN71, we need to get Internet user views about systems and processes that they are experiencing but with perhaps no understanding about why these processes and policies exist - for example, people who can't understand why they are being impacted and experiencing strange things happening to them on the internet - those who have never heard about "DNS Abuse" but are certainly experiencing it. The Boards mandate for At-Large is to get ICANN's messages out to our communities so our first focus is on getting our ALSes and individual members "engaged with the ICANN process" and its policies. Surely our "legitimacy" to contribute to the discussions that we have with other sections of the ICANN community needs to come from those who have NOT been instructed to consider ICANN expectations first and foremost. Maybe we need to be canvassing the views of people BEFORE they enter ICANN and then asking them after a period of time about what they found helpful about actually being part of the ICANN process. This is where I think our research needs to be directed - getting the views of endusers who dont yet know about ICANN and can give us feedback that would be more relevant for us to focus on. An early morning reflection on a great discussion topic. Thank you Roberto. Maureen On Tue, 15 Jun 2021, 5:25 am Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: I agree that we should have this discussion. It's unfortunate to have it in a public forum because it really has to do with how the ALAC and the At-Large community operates. Let's do it! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> Main: +1 (202) 827-7594 Direct: +1 (202) 420-7483 _____ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:18:57 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Subject: [CPWG] ALAC Advice Dear all, At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position.
From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board). Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic. Cheers, Roberto
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.
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:03, Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: we need to get Internet user views about systems and processes that they
are experiencing but with perhaps no understanding about why these processes and policies exist - for example, people who can't understand why they are being impacted and experiencing strange things happening to them on the internet - those who have never heard about "DNS Abuse" but are certainly experiencing it.
Indeed. The Boards mandate for At-Large is to get ICANN's messages out to our
communities
"Our communities" is collectively the world of end-users.
so our first focus is on getting our ALSes and individual members "engaged with the ICANN process" and its policies.
Sigh. This tactic has been the norm for dozens of years and returned very little; doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of the resources (ICANN cash and volunteer time) spent on ALAC outreach would result in a cause for distress. People inside the bubble refuse to see that the effort required to be as engaged as they are in ICANN is well beyond the time/effort ability of the vast majority of people, and those who ARE interested know where to find it. Perhaps if the aim was a little more basic, to encourage the public to know what ICANN is and be aware of its impact (in order to provide informed feedback) is a more reasonable goal that will yield better results for ALAC's mandate. The implicit current demand that one needs to be "engaged" in order to have any input will continue to fail. Surely our "legitimacy" to contribute to the discussions that we have
with other sections of the ICANN community needs to come from those who have NOT been instructed to consider ICANN expectations first and foremost.
"Consider ICANN"? Get far more basic than that. Our impact needs to come from people who don't know (and shouldn't have to care) what an ICANN is.
Maybe we need to be canvassing the views of people BEFORE they enter ICANN
And here is the assumption at the heart of the problem. "Getting involved in ICANN" remains a required part of the process. ALAC will forever ignore (and be ignored by) the vast bulk of its Board-defined constituency by maintaining this attitude, and the resulting lack of credibility issue will continue to linger. ICANN is part of the Internet's infrastructure, yet people are not asked to "get involved" in other infrastructure such as their local electrical, trash-collection or road-building authority. In a well working system of infrastructure the public is informed and its feedback solicited to inform future decisions. The in-vogue priority of "getting people involved" is a loser and has been demonstrated so nearly since the RALOs were formed. Those who have specific interest and/or expertise to offer can easily find out how to engage, and for one-third of ALAC it's the NomCom's job to find suitable participants anyway. For the rest of the billions, informed feedback is all we should ever want or expect -- and should be the primary legitimacy-building strategy. - Evan
participants (13)
-
Chokri Ben Romdhane -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
jkuleszaicann＠gmail.com -
Jonathan Zuck -
Laurin B Weissinger -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Roberto Gaetano -
Yrjö Länsipuro