Thanks to All of you contributing to this thread. My hope is that as a prelude to the Summit, we could unpack some axiomatic assumptions about ICANN policy and internet users. I don't think that mapping different ALS's or RALO's concepts of internet users - or concepts of who is active in ICANN - needs to be an "official" activity. I don't think we would come to consensus or even need to come to consensus about it. The purpose would be to gain clarity on the assumptions that are active behind our policy discussions. I believe that is a valuable prelude to making good policy decisions-- particularly when we have such diverse people. I think it would be most effective as a prelude to the Summit if that's possible. However, it may be good to have at least some time where it's addressed as Evan has suggested in his schedule. As far as outcomes for the Summit, what are positive outcomes. Hmmm. My assumption is that ALAC (and possibly other ICANN constituencies) will view as positive outcomes for the Summit will be weighing in on current ICANN policy. This is not a bad goal. My sense is that the low hanging fruit for engaging with ICANN regarding internet users is on issues that fall squarely within ICANN's sphere of influence, but those issues, I believe, are not the ones which impact users most. There's the rub. For example, phishing is a huge problem -- ICANN has some hand in solving that problem but by no means is the sole arena for solving that problem. In a world of finite resources, I really want to spend my time working on issues that are of most import to internet users. AND I want to have a calculated idea of how to most effect a particular issue which effects internet users. I would argue that At-Large should consider different ways of engaging on an issue depending on what an issue is, the degree to which it impacts internet users, and the degree to which the issue falls within ICANN's sphere of influence. There is a wonderful civil rights song, "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize." I would measure outcomes for the Summit in terms of whether we can move forward on behalf of internet users, a slightly different goal than trying to look good in the eyes of other ICANN bodies. If we want positive outcomes for the Summit, than I suggest that we take on the work which I am suggesting as a prelude to the Summit. Whatever outcomes are planned for the Summit, they are most likely to be achieved if the groundwork is set in place well beforehand. -Dharma On Nov 4, 2008, at 4:38 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Hi Dharma,
I just have several thoughts.
ALAC and the Board are meeting while I type this. One question we have before them is, "What outcomes do the Board wish to see from the At-Large Summit?". What three of them hammered on was that they need to see outcomes. Specifically, that the ALSs will become more aware and then engaged in policy matters.
We could do a mapping exercise such as you are mentioning but be aware that even if the ALSs all come to an agreement as to who the internet users are, this may not necessarily affect any of the other constituencies (or ICANN itself) that may come up with a completely different definition. Having said this, I wouldn't want to take TOO much time on this topic. It is definitely important but I wouldn't want to get too hung up on it.
One of the things that we have discussed is to break the ALSs up VERY shortly after the Cairo meeting into maybe 4 policy working groups so that they can see how the process goes and so that they can learn about some issues prior to Mexico. In Mexico, these policy drafts will then be finalized. In Mexico, there will, of course, be further policy briefings. This will be part of the work that ALSs will be required to do in order to be funded to go to the Summit (hey, we warned everybody that work was going to be involved and filling out one questionnaire ain't it!).
I hope this helps,
D
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Dharma Dailey Sent: Mon 11/3/2008 5:56 PM To: Bret Fausett Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?
On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Dharma Dailey wrote:
If we can get some clarity on "who is in the room" before we start fighting about what is the "right" meaning of "internet user" is, that would help us move forward.
I've been thinking about this from a different direction, in light of the Verisign/.COM agreement a couple of years ago. You may recall that the comment boards then were flooded with comments, many were duplicates of standard form emails, many were from first time ICANN commenters, spurred on by lobbyists and such, and it made parsing the support for the relative positions difficult. It made me wonder about asking people commenting on the ICANN Boards to register. Registration would ask for basic contact information, like name and address, and also ask people to disclose their financial interests in the outcomes. Registration could be voluntary, and registration, or failure to register, could go to the weight the comments should be given. It's important to know who is in the room, but equally important to know why they are in the room.
I agree with your aim of greater transparency for all ICANN participants. "Who" and "why" are deeply connected questions with many other questions nested within them. In addition to calling out the rest of the ICANN world for better transparency, as NARALO, we have the opportunity to define what best practices are regarding transparency - at least within our own little domain- and to model their use. Doing so may also help us to work more effectively together.
To take most advantage of the energy and excitement that builds up heading into a face to face meeting -- such as we will have in Mexico -- I was hoping that others in NARALO may be excited to try to map out these two issues -- "who" and "why." If we can map out what's not contentious -- for example -- it's a fact that large telecoms consider themselves to be "internet users" vis a vis ICANN-- then we will have some clear background for discussing the more contentious material : "What is the best way for us to positively influence ICANN on behalf of internet users?" The more time that we use to discuss framing in Mexico City, the less time we will have to set priorities such as What are the most important issues in front of ICANN which affect net users? and What is the best way to influence those issues on behalf of net users? In my experience, it's very hard to get consensus on such topics in any other way than in person-- and we aren't going to have much time for those discussions when we do get together.
Should doing such mapping not be of interest to NARALO as a whole, I suggest that NARALO picks another task as a prelude to the Mexico meeting which will capitalize on people's natural inclination to participate more prior to a face to face meeting. Alternative suggestions are welcome.
AIf these topics or means aren't of interest to NARALO as a whole, I am happy to work with anyone else that is interested in trying to map them. For myself, I see this mapping and framing as a critical step in my own understanding of how the users I care about are impacted by ICANN.
-Dharma
-- Bret
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------