This is another issue that seems to make ICANN conversations difficult: Who is an internet user? 9 times out of 10 an "internet user" is used to cloak the agenda of groups that may, in fact, be a tiny sliver of internet users as a whole. I think it would be great for NARALO to map who the internet users are that we work most closely with as individual ALSs. This could inform recruitment of new ALSs, strengthen collaboration within NARALO -- "Who are we working with?" -- and, begin to identify the many flavors of "internet user" that circulate at ICANN. -Dharma Dailey
This is another issue that seems to make ICANN conversations difficult: Who is an internet user? 9 times out of 10 an "internet user" is used to cloak the agenda of groups that may, in fact, be a tiny sliver of internet users as a whole.
Over the years, the main issue I've seen is whether the ALAC represents all individual Internet users, or just the ones who've registered domains. It's always been obvious to me tkat the first definition is the one who makes sense, but the latter was often implicitly accepted in some of the discussions I've been in. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Hi Dharma, Nice mapping -- I think that's quite helpful and should be part of the broader discussion. I encourage you to put it into some of the public consultations on the role of the Internet user. --Wendy Dharma Dailey wrote:
This is another issue that seems to make ICANN conversations difficult: Who is an internet user? 9 times out of 10 an "internet user" is used to cloak the agenda of groups that may, in fact, be a tiny sliver of internet users as a whole. I think it would be great for NARALO to map who the internet users are that we work most closely with as individual ALSs. This could inform recruitment of new ALSs, strengthen collaboration within NARALO -- "Who are we working with?" -- and, begin to identify the many flavors of "internet user" that circulate at ICANN.
-Dharma Dailey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/
glad that you did this...we are talking a lot about users at this particular ICANN meeting...which is good, though becoming progressively more complicated in an ICANN way ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer [wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:02 PM To: Dharma Dailey Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users? Hi Dharma, Nice mapping -- I think that's quite helpful and should be part of the broader discussion. I encourage you to put it into some of the public consultations on the role of the Internet user. --Wendy Dharma Dailey wrote:
This is another issue that seems to make ICANN conversations difficult: Who is an internet user? 9 times out of 10 an "internet user" is used to cloak the agenda of groups that may, in fact, be a tiny sliver of internet users as a whole. I think it would be great for NARALO to map who the internet users are that we work most closely with as individual ALSs. This could inform recruitment of new ALSs, strengthen collaboration within NARALO -- "Who are we working with?" -- and, begin to identify the many flavors of "internet user" that circulate at ICANN.
-Dharma Dailey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.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 ------ *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
My approach would be to start by just cataloging / mapping the meaning of how it's used. 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. In ICANN parlance, "internet user" fulfills the role that "citizens" or "the public" fits in democracies, and "community" fits in other contexts: that is, it's used elastically as an overture to patch different constiuencies agendas under one tent. The more flesh we have on the bones of internet users, the better we will be at understanding their collective interests. I am aware that my work/time/energy is particularly connected with specific subsets of internet users-- and also to people who may not be considered internet users-- but could be effected by "the internet." I'm interested to know how others in At-Large, especially NARALO perceive the term and their connection to it. -Dharma Dailey On Nov 3, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
glad that you did this...we are talking a lot about users at this particular ICANN meeting...which is good, though becoming progressively more complicated in an ICANN way ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer [wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:02 PM To: Dharma Dailey Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?
Hi Dharma,
Nice mapping -- I think that's quite helpful and should be part of the broader discussion. I encourage you to put it into some of the public consultations on the role of the Internet user.
--Wendy
Dharma Dailey wrote:
This is another issue that seems to make ICANN conversations difficult: Who is an internet user? 9 times out of 10 an "internet user" is used to cloak the agenda of groups that may, in fact, be a tiny sliver of internet users as a whole. I think it would be great for NARALO to map who the internet users are that we work most closely with as individual ALSs. This could inform recruitment of new ALSs, strengthen collaboration within NARALO -- "Who are we working with?" -- and, begin to identify the many flavors of "internet user" that circulate at ICANN.
-Dharma Dailey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.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 ------
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
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. -- Bret
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 ------
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 <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 <http://www.naralo.org/> ------
Darlene That idea about using the Summit to encourage ALS participation in policy WGs is a good one. One question is - the issues that they work on should be up and coming issues or continuing issues - if "current" issues are the ones chosen, it may be that the process is educative, but that Mexico City is too late for the "outcome" as a final policy statement. Jacqueline 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 <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 <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 ------
Jacqueline, Yes, we realize that. It was in my mind (so I'm not talking for anybody else!) to try to pick issues that are either up and coming or current but with deadlines post-Mexico so that we aren't just spinning our tires needlessly. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Tue 11/4/2008 4:51 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users? Darlene That idea about using the Summit to encourage ALS participation in policy WGs is a good one. One question is - the issues that they work on should be up and coming issues or continuing issues - if "current" issues are the ones chosen, it may be that the process is educative, but that Mexico City is too late for the "outcome" as a final policy statement. Jacqueline 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 <http://www.naralo.org/> <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 <http://www.naralo.org/> <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 <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 <http://www.naralo.org/> ------
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 ------
Hi Dharma, I TOTALLY agree with you to do this sort of thing before the meeting. It is definitely a good exercise and should help clarify things. Evan is also working on this now so he should have some good input. Just be careful as to your outcomes. Keep in mind that ICANN is paying for this (to the tune of over $600,000), so we really DO have to cater to them. Yes, we want it to be of use to internet users - of course. But it MUST be within ICANN's mandate. Personally, I would much rather talk about other things that would be of more use to my users (internet related) but would not be supported in this venue. We are going to have to agree on a happy medium some how. D ________________________________ From: Dharma Dailey [mailto:dharma@ethoswireless.com] Sent: Tue 11/4/2008 8:25 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Bret Fausett; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users? 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 <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 <http://www.naralo.org/> ------
On Nov 4, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Hi Dharma,
I TOTALLY agree with you to do this sort of thing before the meeting. It is definitely a good exercise and should help clarify things. Evan is also working on this now so he should have some good input.
Just be careful as to your outcomes. Keep in mind that ICANN is paying for this (to the tune of over $600,000), so we really DO have to cater to them. Yes, we want it to be of use to internet users - of course. But it MUST be within ICANN's mandate. Personally, I would much rather talk about other things that would be of more use to my users (internet related) but would not be supported in this venue. We are going to have to agree on a happy medium some how.
I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that no really really communications and media policy really does have a big impact on them. I can empathize with ICANN on this. I believe that many people around ICANN genuinely believe that there are decisions made at ICANN which ripple out into the world of internet users AND that internet users can and should have their say about such issues. If we are going to make this experiment in democracy work, we need to be able to make logical connections between ICANN policies and issues that users care about. We also need to understand the context of those issues. I believe that attempting to make some systematic judgements of the degree of impact that a particular ICANN policy has on internet users is a form of due diligence on the part of At-Large. Further, I believe that it is due diligence for At-Large to attempt to analyze the relative importance of other issues addressing internet users as compared with issues that are in front of ICANN. Without the collective expertise of the At-Large / ICANN community weighing in on such an analysis, I admit having no idea whatsoever where policies would fall in terms of importance or in terms of ICANN's ability to influence them. Without such an analysis, I can't imagine how we will be able to grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies among internet users. I would argue that At-Large is uniquely positioned to take this on and that is in the interest of ICANN as an NGO and ICANN as a "community" for us to do so. Again, a working document or documents mapping issues / user impact / ICANN influence matrix is something we might attempt as a prelude to the Summit. dharma
D
From: Dharma Dailey [mailto:dharma@ethoswireless.com] Sent: Tue 11/4/2008 8:25 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: Bret Fausett; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?
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 ------
Dharma, Please consider the following analogy. A state decides to build a new highway. The new highway will displace hundreds of citizens in the proposed path of the highway. Citizens become aware of the situation and many become angry. Preliminary Town Hall meetings are convened. Citizens vent their rage. Citizens form ad hoc Homeowner Association constituent groups. The Ad Hoc groups pay for impact studies and then offer up counter-proposals. Over the course of time, a few experts emerge from this community that understand the technical elements (highway grading concerns, watershed considerations, etc.). These few people wind up representing the impacted citizens in front of Planning Boards and the Highway Commissions. Ultimately a decision is reached regarding the highway. Some grumble and complain but eventually all accept whatever decision is reached. The ad hoc groups dissolve, the experts return to other duties, and life goes on until the State makes its next bad decision on some other topic. Rinse and repeat. When major issues arise (such as the RegisterFly debacle) users have demonstrated that they no difficulty finding their way to ICANN. All that is needed is: 1. A Town Hall opportunity so that concerns can be laid out. 2. A workspace within which ad-hoc coalitions can work to propose solutions 3. A few experts that can contribute regarding technical considerations 4. A clear process that outlines how a decision will be reached. There is no need to "grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies among internet users". Users will come forward when a situation warrants action. We have sufficient proof that this occurs. Our sole goal should be to ensure that modalities are in place to allow for impacted parties to have their say, and to be able to contribute to a solution-set if they are inclined to participate. best wishes, Danny
Danny, Do you have any sense of the contribution that At-Large made in resolving the Register Fly issue? It would be nice to capture what we think works. I was hoping that posing the questions on issues and users might get some folks chiming in on what they see works, what doesn't, what's important, what isn't. Thanks for stepping up. I can understand how some people might feel that I'm being hopeless pedantic. I accept that. I'm making this pitch to take a step back before we step forward based on my own observations over the past year. I believe there have been instances where disagreements may have been avoided if there was greater awareness that we are not all operating under the same assumptions about what is important and what isn't, what is effective and what isn't. In other contexts, I have seen benefit from identifying those assumptions. It doesn't mean that we all have to get consensus on what a good strategy is, what the most important issue is, or even what an internet user is. Simply knowing where "people are coming from," as the boomers say, can be help avoid unexpected and therefore more heated disagreements. I'm making the pitch now because I believe that spending the next few months mapping these things out will make our limited time together in Mexico City more effective. I believe we get the most bang for the buck out of the Summit if we spend our time there doing things that we can't do online. F2F is important for building trust, for resolving conflict, for making decisions on strategy and for honest evaluation. Online is good for sharing factual information and identifying points of convergence/ divergence of opinion. I believe if we fill in the blanks in somewhat methodical way between now and then , we'll have deeper, more productive time in person. I proposed *a* framing for placing issues, but the framing is arbitrary. The real point is to have some working way for us as NARALO to discuss the *relative* importance of an issue vis a vis users, the *relative* value of a particular strategy, and so forth. I'm not thinking of a be all, end all document. Something rough, disposable, maybe something we throw away after we've used it, is just fine. It's really about preparing us to work together well through the Summit. You bring up some interesting points. In the case of Register Fly, we have a situation that clearly impacts internet users who have registered domain names. There was a real clarity about what the problem was. The accusations against the registery were numerous and assert that domains were suspended for spurious reasons. In my matrix that would be a high impact to a subset of internet users - those who were using Register Fly as their domain registry. You have a situation that clearly impacts users and clearly ICANN is a main decision maker in resolving the problems for internet users. There is also a sense of urgency on the issue because of the seriousness of the allegations. I think your analogy for this situation for this type of situation is accurate. The strategy you describe for mobilizing around such an issue is a time tested one. ICANN issues like Register Fly are relatively easy to sort out because at the end of the day it comes down to a rather Boolean analysis: Did you, Register Fly, break your contractual obligations with ICANN? The US courts, Register Fly and ICANN make up the the short list of characters that the Register Fly plot turns on. There are other issues which effect internet users where ICANN is not the as influential. In those cases mobilizing a town hall to influence ICANN won't necessarily change the outcomes for internet users. For example, think of all the different actors involved in IPv6 transition. The entities who have to change behavior, equipment, possibly even business practices is in the tens of thousands. They cross many geolpolitical borders. They are in many different socioeconomic circumstances. It's hard to assess what impact IPv6 transition has on internet users. That means that it takes a lot more of an investment of time and resources to see things through on behalf of internet users. To use your analogy, it's the difference between organizing for/against a highway across your front door and organizing for better planning around all highways built on earth in the next 30 years. The IPv6 is more abstract, less immediate, harder to measure overall impact, harder to understand how any one actor involved influences any other actor. In all a good bit more complicated. There is a much steeper commitment for those that want to get see through such issues than showing up at a town hall. Another key difference is between an issue like Register Fly and IPv6, it's lot easier to look backward -- "Hey this registry isn't working the way it should!" than looking forward -- "This is the best way to continue to grow the internet." Danny, a point of interest to me which you bring up, is this role of the technical expert and how they interact with "internet users." On the whole, I think the challenge for At-Large -- as well as all of those who advocate for democratic leadership of the internet - turns on how well the flow of information is able to travel back and forth between different types of expertise. In the case of Register Fly, the issues weren't technical, they were business / contractual issues. In the realm of communications policy which I'm most familiar, analog radio policy in the US, I've seen technical arguments very successfully cloak political and economic agenda. If you can't win an open argument for a business practice-- at least in the US-- one good strategy is to try to blow smoke around the technical aspects. When people are in doubt about what to do, they tend to do nothing- or they fall back on their bias. The more complicated the technical argument is, the more time, talent, and money it takes to wade through the merits of it. It takes a different level of tenacity to maintain public engagement in those circumstances. When there are genuine public benefit trade offs turning around on competing technical choices, all bets are off. Completely off topic: There IS a raised highway that goes over where my great-great grandmother's house was. It's a strange feeling knowing that my great-grandmother, her sisters and brothers were conceived, born and raised on a patch of pavement that I drive over. I've dreamt about being in that house though it was destroyed years before I was born. Best Regards, Dharma On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Dharma,
Please consider the following analogy.
A state decides to build a new highway. The new highway will displace hundreds of citizens in the proposed path of the highway. Citizens become aware of the situation and many become angry. Preliminary Town Hall meetings are convened. Citizens vent their rage. Citizens form ad hoc Homeowner Association constituent groups. The Ad Hoc groups pay for impact studies and then offer up counter-proposals. Over the course of time, a few experts emerge from this community that understand the technical elements (highway grading concerns, watershed considerations, etc.). These few people wind up representing the impacted citizens in front of Planning Boards and the Highway Commissions. Ultimately a decision is reached regarding the highway. Some grumble and complain but eventually all accept whatever decision is reached. The ad hoc groups dissolve, the experts return to other duties, and life goes on until the State makes its next bad decision on some other topic. Rinse and repeat.
When major issues arise (such as the RegisterFly debacle) users have demonstrated that they no difficulty finding their way to ICANN. All that is needed is:
1. A Town Hall opportunity so that concerns can be laid out. 2. A workspace within which ad-hoc coalitions can work to propose solutions 3. A few experts that can contribute regarding technical considerations 4. A clear process that outlines how a decision will be reached.
There is no need to "grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies among internet users". Users will come forward when a situation warrants action. We have sufficient proof that this occurs.
Our sole goal should be to ensure that modalities are in place to allow for impacted parties to have their say, and to be able to contribute to a solution-set if they are inclined to participate.
best wishes, Danny
This is an excellent discussion - kudos, all! On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com>wrote:
Danny,
Do you have any sense of the contribution that At-Large made in resolving the Register Fly issue? It would be nice to capture what we think works.
I was hoping that posing the questions on issues and users might get some folks chiming in on what they see works, what doesn't, what's important, what isn't. Thanks for stepping up.
I can understand how some people might feel that I'm being hopeless pedantic. I accept that. I'm making this pitch to take a step back before we step forward based on my own observations over the past year. I believe there have been instances where disagreements may have been avoided if there was greater awareness that we are not all operating under the same assumptions about what is important and what isn't, what is effective and what isn't. In other contexts, I have seen benefit from identifying those assumptions. It doesn't mean that we all have to get consensus on what a good strategy is, what the most important issue is, or even what an internet user is. Simply knowing where "people are coming from," as the boomers say, can be help avoid unexpected and therefore more heated disagreements.
I'm making the pitch now because I believe that spending the next few months mapping these things out will make our limited time together in Mexico City more effective. I believe we get the most bang for the buck out of the Summit if we spend our time there doing things that we can't do online. F2F is important for building trust, for resolving conflict, for making decisions on strategy and for honest evaluation. Online is good for sharing factual information and identifying points of convergence/ divergence of opinion. I believe if we fill in the blanks in somewhat methodical way between now and then , we'll have deeper, more productive time in person. I proposed *a* framing for placing issues, but the framing is arbitrary. The real point is to have some working way for us as NARALO to discuss the *relative* importance of an issue vis a vis users, the *relative* value of a particular strategy, and so forth. I'm not thinking of a be all, end all document. Something rough, disposable, maybe something we throw away after we've used it, is just fine. It's really about preparing us to work together well through the Summit.
You bring up some interesting points. In the case of Register Fly, we have a situation that clearly impacts internet users who have registered domain names. There was a real clarity about what the problem was. The accusations against the registery were numerous and assert that domains were suspended for spurious reasons. In my matrix that would be a high impact to a subset of internet users - those who were using Register Fly as their domain registry. You have a situation that clearly impacts users and clearly ICANN is a main decision maker in resolving the problems for internet users. There is also a sense of urgency on the issue because of the seriousness of the allegations. I think your analogy for this situation for this type of situation is accurate. The strategy you describe for mobilizing around such an issue is a time tested one.
ICANN issues like Register Fly are relatively easy to sort out because at the end of the day it comes down to a rather Boolean analysis: Did you, Register Fly, break your contractual obligations with ICANN? The US courts, Register Fly and ICANN make up the the short list of characters that the Register Fly plot turns on. There are other issues which effect internet users where ICANN is not the as influential. In those cases mobilizing a town hall to influence ICANN won't necessarily change the outcomes for internet users.
For example, think of all the different actors involved in IPv6 transition. The entities who have to change behavior, equipment, possibly even business practices is in the tens of thousands. They cross many geolpolitical borders. They are in many different socioeconomic circumstances. It's hard to assess what impact IPv6 transition has on internet users. That means that it takes a lot more of an investment of time and resources to see things through on behalf of internet users. To use your analogy, it's the difference between organizing for/against a highway across your front door and organizing for better planning around all highways built on earth in the next 30 years. The IPv6 is more abstract, less immediate, harder to measure overall impact, harder to understand how any one actor involved influences any other actor. In all a good bit more complicated. There is a much steeper commitment for those that want to get see through such issues than showing up at a town hall.
Another key difference is between an issue like Register Fly and IPv6, it's lot easier to look backward -- "Hey this registry isn't working the way it should!" than looking forward -- "This is the best way to continue to grow the internet."
Danny, a point of interest to me which you bring up, is this role of the technical expert and how they interact with "internet users." On the whole, I think the challenge for At-Large -- as well as all of those who advocate for democratic leadership of the internet - turns on how well the flow of information is able to travel back and forth between different types of expertise. In the case of Register Fly, the issues weren't technical, they were business / contractual issues. In the realm of communications policy which I'm most familiar, analog radio policy in the US, I've seen technical arguments very successfully cloak political and economic agenda. If you can't win an open argument for a business practice-- at least in the US-- one good strategy is to try to blow smoke around the technical aspects. When people are in doubt about what to do, they tend to do nothing- or they fall back on their bias. The more complicated the technical argument is, the more time, talent, and money it takes to wade through the merits of it. It takes a different level of tenacity to maintain public engagement in those circumstances. When there are genuine public benefit trade offs turning around on competing technical choices, all bets are off.
Completely off topic: There IS a raised highway that goes over where my great-great grandmother's house was. It's a strange feeling knowing that my great-grandmother, her sisters and brothers were conceived, born and raised on a patch of pavement that I drive over. I've dreamt about being in that house though it was destroyed years before I was born.
Best Regards, Dharma
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Dharma,
Please consider the following analogy.
A state decides to build a new highway. The new highway will displace hundreds of citizens in the proposed path of the highway. Citizens become aware of the situation and many become angry. Preliminary Town Hall meetings are convened. Citizens vent their rage. Citizens form ad hoc Homeowner Association constituent groups. The Ad Hoc groups pay for impact studies and then offer up counter-proposals. Over the course of time, a few experts emerge from this community that understand the technical elements (highway grading concerns, watershed considerations, etc.). These few people wind up representing the impacted citizens in front of Planning Boards and the Highway Commissions. Ultimately a decision is reached regarding the highway. Some grumble and complain but eventually all accept whatever decision is reached. The ad hoc groups dissolve, the experts return to other duties, and life goes on until the State makes its next bad decision on some other topic. Rinse and repeat.
When major issues arise (such as the RegisterFly debacle) users have demonstrated that they no difficulty finding their way to ICANN. All that is needed is:
1. A Town Hall opportunity so that concerns can be laid out. 2. A workspace within which ad-hoc coalitions can work to propose solutions 3. A few experts that can contribute regarding technical considerations 4. A clear process that outlines how a decision will be reached.
There is no need to "grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies among internet users". Users will come forward when a situation warrants action. We have sufficient proof that this occurs.
Our sole goal should be to ensure that modalities are in place to allow for impacted parties to have their say, and to be able to contribute to a solution-set if they are inclined to participate.
best wishes, Danny
------ 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 ------
participants (9)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Dharma Dailey -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
Michael Maranda -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wendy Seltzer