Dharma Dailey wrote:
Yes maybe we can add value to ICANN's policy development process, but will putting time-energy into that yield more than putting energy into other areas? Think .us, for example.
Yes, let's think .us. As it turns out, we have someone in our midst (Danny) who is very familiar with the issue and has alerted us on the danger of what's happening -- for which I am thankful. (Why didn't ICANN staff alert us of this issue?) So... what do we do with this information? Obviously there was little we can do in advance of the US government RFP, and little we can do nowto change its wording. HOWEVER, there is an opportunity here for us to voice our opposition to the anti-Internet-consumer components of the RFP, and to explain how this RFP goes against existing ICANN policy and against the delicate balance between privacy and accountability that we must all deal with. Doing SOMETHING -- even a brief-but-direct open letter to CCNSO endorsed by NARALO and (hopefully, but not required) the ALAC -- would at least indicate that we have something of value to say about the issue. It will at least let others in the community know that we are prepared to expose efforts within the TLD community aimed to repress rights or freedoms of Internet consumers in favour of other constituencies. The efforts we have suggested so far -- LA-meeting outreach, the Summit -- are important to the long-term growth and vitality of the At-Large constituency, but they're still mere tactics to increase our breadth and diversity. The primary purpose for our existence here is to assert the presence of the At-Large community while keeping that community informed of what's going on. And that includes the sounding of alarm bells when necessary.
Even in terms of what's useful to do within ICANN, it seems that there is very little consensus. I humbly disagree. We came away from San Juan with an explicit vision and priorities list. What wasn't yet settled was "who does what", but the spreadsheet Darlene created on the second-last day was explicit and most certainly the result of consensus. We even had a set of next steps developed.
The reason everyone is sweating the small stuff, in my opinion, is because ICANN is not clear what our purpose is and neither are we. One side or the other has to square that up. Hmm. Maybe we could create a document that outlines explicitly, for ICANN and the ALSs, what role they are expected to play and what each sides' responsibilities are. Maybe, after thrashing out the details amongst ourselves and with ICANN legal, we could all get together and, along with Vint, sign this document at an ICANN meeting.
Oh, wait a minute.... As far as I can tell we are fairly clear on purpose -- we exist to advocate the interests and values of the Internet-using public within ICANN, and to educate the public in ICANN activities and their effect on open and useful use of the Internet. Everything we do -- outreach, summits, position papers, advocacy -- is a tactic borne from this purpose. If there is something incorrect with the above statement, please say so. Maybe others would state it differently, but I'm not aware that there's any real divergence from the above sentiment amongst anyone I've spoken or written to. Now... at what point do we stop talking about doing things, and actually start to do them?
From what I can see, we defined two explicit projects that need working groups: Outreach and Summit. I've already indicated to Darlene -- who's been collecting this information -- about my interest to start work on the Summit ASAP. We didn't speak before of a policy WG, but the .us issue offers us an opportunity to start contributing early on in our growth, because we are blessed with having people in our group who have experience and awareness of issues that other RALOs may lack. This would indicate creation of a third WG on Policy.
I sit here waiting to find out who else is interested in working on the Summit so we can start the long slog ahead. There is a lot of work to do, and less time between now and the LA meeting than you may think.
I prefer to consider what we want to accomplish, *then* what we need to make it happen, rather than the other way around. I would prefer to see NA RALO say to ICANN, "This is what we are going to do, this is what we want to do it," And I would prefer for NARALO to just shut up and just do it.
I've been involved in enough groups in which communications for its own sake is a primary goal -- everyone talks but nothing gets done -- and I've tired of them. If this is going to be a group like that, let me know now so I can spend my time elsewhere actually doing something. I thought we got a lot accomplished in San Juan ... do we act on it, or continue to let the repressive elements of ICANN walk all over the Internet-using public while we thrash around in endless re-debates of first principles? - Evan PS: In order to take my own advice and not encourage more talk for the sake of talk, I will do my best to limit my ongoing NA-discuss participation to policy and project matters. No promises, though ;-) PPS: I couldn't care less how ALAC picks its chair. If it had a proper secretariat and membership that was aware of who they served, who the chair is would be far less relevant than it is now.