Evan, I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. I respectfully object to your concept of what is appropriate for this list. This list is called "North America DISCUSS." The only constant about internet users is that they are always changing in usage patterns, in demographics, and in expectations. How are we to represent internet users effectively in ICANN or elsewhere if we aren't up to speed on what's going on out there? Glenn posted a message to a discussion list, he wasn't standing in front of the board telling them that ICANN should change it's mission to saving the whales. I don't recall a decision by NARALO to limit topics on the NARALO list. If one exists, can you please reference it? Members of NARALO are intelligent adults, it should be a matter of their discretion what the list is used for. If you cut off discussion, you cut off fresh ideas, fresh perspectives. I am in favor of a discussion policy that allows for the occasional off-topic topic thus creating a culture where people feel free to put what they feel is important and relevant out there. Who decides what is important and relevant? I shared an empty issue map with blanks for "this is in the ICANN domain, and this is not" "this is important to internet users and this is not" "ICANN can influence this outcome somewhat, solely or not at all" for precisely this reason. My observation is that those most active in At-Large have such conceptual maps in their head, but have not undertaken a systematic process to unpack the assumptions of those models. Instead of taking a step back to do so, we all get front and center seats via our mailbox to non-stop bickering, "YOU should be doing this, YOU should be doing that. Why didn't YOU take my suggestion?" Please don't assume that because you have a conceptual framework for what is in ICANN's domain and what isn't that everyone has that same conceptual framework in their own head. There is both a learning curve AND a gray area. I believe that individual's assumptions about what is important vis a vis ICANN and how to effect change on what is important vis a vis issues concerning internet users is 95% of the bickering that goes on in At-Large. Better to get these things out in the air for discussion with open inquiry than make a declaration which shuts down discussion. Even for issues which are clearly in ICANN's domain, we shouldn't automatically assume that trying to influence the ICANN board or other members of the ICANN community is the most effective way to net a positive outcome for internet users. In my conceptual map, I believe positive change for internet users vis a vis ICANN will be effected by having more internet users know what ICANN is, what decisions fall at it's door, current topics of importance. But no one in ICANN, or At-Large, or anywhere else can dictate to internet users what they believe to be important. In order to create meaningful education on ICANN issues, we have to do come by the work honestly by making logical connections between the concerns of internet users and the role that ICANN plays in those concerns. There is MUCH groundwork to do to make those connections logical for -- I won't say average user b/c I don't know what the average user is these days-- someone in an internet cafe in Bejing? -- but I can say with certainty for the internet users which I am connected to. My day job, in part, entails surveying people to discern their concerns around the internet. By far and away among those that I work with --community based networks, community media outfits, and media policy groups comprised of traditionally marginalized populations---- the absolute number one concern is Access, followed by Net Neutrality -- which they as view as subset of access. Which is why, when I hear the argument -- which I'm sure you've all heard- that ICANN issues doesn't have anything to do with internet users, I don't argue. I am simply in a process of inquiry reserving judgement, trying to probe how internet users concerns and ICANN policy connect with each other. It seems that I am in a minority in believing that educating internet users is at least as important as writing positions to the board on current issues, A position which I cheerfully accept. All I ask is that simple accommodation is made- such as space for discussion on the email list for issues of concern to internet users- which allows that work to progress. Best Regards, Dharma On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Glenn McKnight wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html Canada source of over 9 billion spam messages a day: Hi Glenn,
Please keep in mind that this list is for the discussion of ICANN-specific topics related to domain names and numbers. While this includes a great many issues such as phishing and domain warehousing, there are many Internet governance related issues -- such as spam, freedom of speech and net neutrality -- that are beyond its mandate.
There are certainly people on this list with a wide range of interests that certainly include the topics listed above, indeed we even have some ALSs here whose primary mission is spam reduction. However, ICANN lists are not really the appropriate venue for their discussion.
Also, when wanting to alert the list to topical news stories, sending the headline and link usually suffices. Copying the whole story can be a waste of bandwidth -- especially for those not interested in the topic -- not to mention possible copyright violation.
- Evan
------ 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 ------