Hi Dharma,
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. That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the concern of my post.
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?
Here is my rationale. Lack of focus is IMO one of the largest impediments to ALAC effectiveness. ALAC, and ICANN in general, are doing a pretty miserable job on the issues that are even within its very limited mandate. ICANN is not the Internet Governance Forum, a place for all kinds of Internet-related discussions including an Internet users Bill of Rights, etc. We are having a hard enough time understanding the complexities of ICANN; in the last call it was clear that matters such as the reconstitution of the GNSO, and its effect on public input, can be complex enough to make peoples' eyes glaze over or -- worse -- tune out. In that regard I am concentrating on that over which NARALO has (or at least is supposed to have) influence. It is important to respect the time of volunteers, and that means limiting the flow of mail to that which is directly relevant. If someone is interested in knowing about news related to spam reduction, there are FAR better places than the NARALO list. As you say, we're intelligent people; most of us are capable of belonging to multiple communities with differing foci. I would rather point people interested in spam to forums in which that is the main point of discussion. I'm sure that most people here, at one time or another, would also want to know what's the best printer for their needs. That awareness would also lead to more effective Internet users, and I'm sure that there are people on this list who might be qualifies to answer that question -- but that too is beyond the scope of this list. Rather than draw an arbitrary boundary about what is relevant *enough*, I have sought to keep a sharp focus on ICANN and matters on which NARALO can directly affect policy.
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.
Actually, we *did* get close to that in Cairo, with a NARALO member trying extremely hard to get free-speech issues on the conference agenda. In retrospect we found that doing so would have severely damaged ICANN's reputation and effectiveness in that region without giving it any capacity to address the (very real) rights issues. So yes, I do have a concern for things getting out of hand, because in a very real sense it very nearly happened with potentially dangerous consequences. Glenn's message of course was not on that scale, but the Cairo events have sensitized me to some of the potential dangers of going off-topic.
I don't recall a decision by NARALO to limit topics on the NARALO list. If one exists, can you please reference it? Article #1 of the NARALO Operating Principles, to which all the original ALS representatives (including yourself) signed off, states:
"NARALO promotes and assures the North American user participation in the ICANN policy development process." That is why we're here. And since there is only a single NARALO-specific mailing list, I believe that the list serves that specific purpose. Now, if there is interest in a second list with the same initial membership that existed to discuss other Internet-related matters beyond ICANN's mandate, I would not object. Nor do I have any problems with using the NARALO skype channel for any kind of discussions of relevance to its members. I am just suggesting that -- in the interests of maintaining focus and minimizing list traffic (for the benefit of those who are subscribed to dozens of lists) -- we keep this list specific to ICANN-targeted matters. There are far better places for more generalized discussion than this.
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.
May be. But right now we have a hard enough time stimulating discussion and getting fresh perspectives on the issues which DO need treatment here. Meanwhile, debating issues over which ICANN has no authority cannot result in followup action that we can implement.
Who decides what is important and relevant? IMO, the ICANN mandate as defined by its Board. It's essentially a naming and numbering organization. The nature of the names, the responsibilities of their buyers and sellers, and the rights of their users are the main focus.
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.
To me, that domain was fairly well defined before At-Large was created. But my stance isn't based on an anal interpretation of what the bounds should be. It's based on my observation that ICANN can't even execute its existing self-defined mandate. Before we should consider expanding ICANN's vision there's a very large and messy house, already in place, that needs to get in order.
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.
Again, I'll refer back to NARALO Operating Principle #1. Affecting ICANN policy development is *the* reason NARALO exists. Our diverse mix of members will have numerous motivations and agendas. But the defined role of NARALO -- the one we signed up for -- is neither assumed nor ambiguous. The visionary discussions you describe are happening all the time within areas such as the IGF and ISOC; we need not seek to duplicate their space nor their members' good work. NARALO by contrast has a specific purpose and focus, though the convergence of some interests explains the significant cross-pollenation between IGF, ISOC and At-Large.
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.
Agreed. But they can (and do) say "if, upon consideration, what you think is important relates directly to our mission, please come advise us. Otherwise there are better and more effective forums to address your needs."
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. In your context I wouldn't argue that either, because there's little ICANN has to do with those issues. It's a naming and numbering organization, whose issues often affect the public in obscure manner.
(Of course, in other parts of the world, access *is* natively an ICANN concern when people can't use their first language and character set for Internet domain names.)
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,
On ICANN issues (as elsewhere), education is a pre-requisite of informed advice; belief in this is hardly a minority stance. But ICANN is in no position to offer -- or even stimulate -- highly relevant education outside of its domains of expertise. It's having a hard enough time providing useful resources on fields which *are* its core mandate.
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.
And all I'm saying in reply is that there are many other more-useful spaces than NA-Discuss for topics outside of ICANN's core mandate. Duplicating the good work of others who have provided and populate those existing spaces, while dulling the focus of NARALO discussion, does a disservice to both the generalists and the focused. What do others here think? - Evan