Re: [NA-Discuss] Letter to the Board
I will review latest comments later today as they don't seem tread well on my gmail bbery ap Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved. There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings. Meetings in my opinion should include not only effective advance planning and prep, but also partication of internet users - which includes virtual and in person strategies. For example, alac could include a briefing to internet local internet users - so that the novice icann oberver/user can in 1hr or less learn what at-large has done since the last in person meeting as well as learn how to engage via als's or other structures. Robert On 11/17/08, admin@isoc.sd <admin@isoc.sd> wrote: > Robert, > > I was interested as an internet user and professional from the region to > join you and others for a dinner to meet Gamal "or Gemy is his nickname, > whom is not the editor in chief of Al Distor Egyptian newspaper, he is the > webmaster", i was interested to hear from him the problems of Egyptian > bloggers and status of internet in Egypt but i did not hear anything > related to that, this evening did not encourage me to participate in the > video show beside another having another commitment at the same time. > > as i have expressed my opinion in an earlier email i don't think the ICANN > meeting is the right fora for such discussions, am against web filtering > and i support freedom of expression, but i guess we might lose track is > the main focus to the internet status in Egypt was political, i have asked > Gemy that night to ask his fellow bloggers to attend ICANN meeting to > participate, learn and engage . > > I hope this incident dose not divert our attention from the main point > which enhancing participation in ICANN meetings . > > Regards, > Mohamed EL Bashir > > > >> >> Robert et.al. Please see my intewrsaced comments to Robert's recent >> posting below... >> >> CLO >> >>> Evan, >> >>> The issue of local user participation ended up being less then >>> optimal due to a couple of reasons. >> >> <CLO> Many in the ICANN Community have agreed and complained about the >> standard of Public and Remote participation at this Cairo meeting... >> The matter of ICANN Meeting participation and our ( ALAC & At-Large's) >> response to this issue will be a matter for discussion at the next >> ALAC Meeting on the 25th >> >>> First, repeated requests for a room to host users was blocked - >>> ewith the excuse given that rooms were not free. Of course that was >>> not the case as the at large room was pretty well free when we were >>> nothere. >> >> <CLO> Robert it would be so much easier if you Do NOT mix Apples and >> Oranges=> please you are referring to a meeting of public interest >> (Local Bloggers) that was hoping to have a meeting at the ICANN Venue >> so that some of us could interface with them if we so desired... Your >> request for a room for this activity was sent to Nick and I on the >> 30th of October at 2300 hrs AEDST and in it (it is inserted below) you >> indicate sponsorship from other entities to assist you in this >> independent venture (well in as much as you were writing from the POV >> of your role/ capacity as Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom >> House... I do NOT see any outcome of this as a Public Participation in >> ICANN Meetings matter... And the community should note that Nick >> replied within a few hours and and you responded on the 31st that YOU >> had not seen the video in question (see snip below) >> >>> Icann and some alac members expressed the vire informally that a >>> local user event was not in "in the remit of at-large" any sensitive >>> ssues might require that "a formal appology" be given to thee >>> egyptian govt offcials. >> >> <CLO> My statements were in regards to conversation threads that were >> critical of the host country of an ICANN meeting being conducted on >> what I believe was an ICANN related ALAC in Cairo Chat space... that >> was fixed at the time, to at least my satisfaction as Chair of the >> ALAC and is unrelated to public participation and I stand by all of my >> actions. >> >> When aked directly if the video could be shown at the enf of at alac >> meeting cheryl stated to me that it was possible, only if it was >> screen by her. I was not awarethat the chair has ever had vetting >> righs on content >> >> <CLO> Cheryl stated that "to get into the very tight agenda time we >> had for our ALAC meetings within the ICANN meeting the ALAC or at >> least the ExCom would have needed to see the video to even consider >> the logistics and planning at that time" YOU stated you had still not >> seen it... that is ALL that I said regarding video footage being added >> under and any other business in any meeting and you should note that >> this is a procedural meeting matter The Chair has total control of the >> Agenda of an ALAC meeting according to the ROP's and again this is NOT >> a matter of Public Participation in th ICANN Meeting... >> >>> Local users did want to come, but with no possible ok from the chair >>> or nick, an adhoc session had to be organized. With little adcance >>> notice - of course few people came. Whilei was very disappointed >>> with the turnout - it was good to see who did attend. It was mainly >>> just the north americans. The rest , well did not seem interested. >> >> <CL0> Local users could have entered any publiuc ( open meeting >> space in any part of the ICANN meeting in Cairo and specifically with >> regards to a video veiwing where ALAC people and those interested in >> ICANN could attend at the venue, you were able to organise a room, it >> was mentioned/ advertised on our lists and chats and those who turned >> up turned up +> AGAIN this is NOT a Public Participation in ICANN >> meeting matter. >> >>> That alac and at large present did seem interested does not mean >>> that local users did not want to meet us. Comments and blog posting >>> in key MENA sites clearly show that the locals did want to meet us. >> >>> On the larger issue of engagement, namely virtual participation - I >>> was shocked by the lack of effort undertaken. No dial-in, no open >>> skype (voice) chat, no virtual questions. While in the past (san >>> juan, la, etc) dial-ups did take place - nothing was done in cairo. >>> Voip, is easy to do - and there is no excuse not to allow for >>> virtual participation. In an age where we are more connected then >>> ever, to do nothing - well, if not to care in the least. Indeed, a >>> formal complaint should b e lodged and actions taken to make sure >>> virtual participation - at alac meetings and other icann sessions is >>> not just considered, but actually done in a way that is effective >>> and participatory. Icann can do better on this, it must .. >> >> <CLO> All valid point and issues of great frustration to many of us >> involved, THESE ARE matters we can discuss as an ALAC and as I said it >> will be on our Agenda d=for the 25th (and your apologies are noted) >> >>> As for the public forum - indeed it seems that the "public >>> participation director" seems to have had little effect in enhancing >>> public participation at meetings. Can one not learn from the US >>> election and use youtube to seek questions and comments and play >>> them back at thr meeting. Sigh. >> >> <CLO> I am more than happy to organise a single topic call with the >> ALAC/At-Large and the Public Participation Director to further this >> important discussion (in fact I had started to discuss this with >> Kieren in Cairo on the Saturday) >> >>> In summary, I think there is a bottom up interest for participation >>> and dialogue - but these are resisted by management who prefer to >>> control the agenda and keep desenting views to a min. What can be done >> - well, comment and participate using other channels . Perhaps >> interested actors would be well advised to submit a letter not to the >> board, but instead to the incoming adminstration . >> >> <CLO> I couldn't agree more >> >> Robert >> >> <insert of request email on 30th October> >> (resending - was in my queue, not sure if sent last night) >> >> Nick & Cheryl: >> >> I have been in touch over the last several weeks with Gemy Hood,who >> is the Editor in Chief of El Dostor Daily News www.dostor.org and >> quite actively involved in the Egyptian blogosphere. >> >> Thanks to funds I have been able to raise, Gemy and his colleagues, >> have - in less then a week - been able to develop a short 20 min >> video (arabic with english subtitles) that documents the issues & >> challenges faced by Egyptian Internet users. I would like to propose >> to show at at the ICANN meeting . >> >> .org (PIR) has graciously agreed to contribute 2,000 USD to sponsor a >> small reception / outreach event so that participants of the ICANN >> meeting can get a better understanding of the issues and challenges >> faced by local internet users, and local users can learn about ways of >> more actively participating at ICANN and Internet Governance processes. >> >> >> If At-large is interested in collaborating in the session - then it >> would be great. It would be a wonderful opportunity for us to better >> know our local counterparts .. and encourage them to register as an >> ALAC. We are missing participation from MENA region, and getting one >> or more groups from Cairo to get involved would demonstrate that >> At-Large is able to do outreach at meetings. >> >> >> As for dates - Thursday Nov 6th between 4-5pm works well for Gemy and >> others in the city. The next step, perhaps with both of your help - >> is to book a space at the conference venue, and arrange logistics for >> a reception. As I mentioned below, there is a small amount available >> for hosting the reception. I would be more then open to have some ALAC >> and/or ICANN staff at the start of the session if there's an interest >> to do so >> >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> --- >> >> >> >> R. Guerra >> Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House >> 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036 >> Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101 >> Mobile +1 202 569 1800, Fax: +1 202 293 2840 >> Email: guerra@freedomhouse.org >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER >> >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >> to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged >> and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the >> message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >> please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 296-5101 and delete the >> original message. >> >> If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that >> electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this >> message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise >> protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special >> arrangements will be made. >> >> <end Insert snip> >> >> Response from Nick... >> >> On 30-Oct-08, at 8:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> >> Dear Robert: >> >> I?m preparing to leave now so there?s little I can do until tomorrow >> at this point on this. I can say that it is VERY late in the day to >> try and get any space at the conference venue for additional meetings >> ? I will ask about it when I arrive. Is the video available somewhere >> online so it can be seen? >> >> RG reply Fri 31/10/2008 12:51 AM >> >> Nick: >> >> I haven't seen the video yet. Will see it when I arrive tomorrow. >> >> Look forward to seeing you the rest of at-large this weekend. >> >> Robert >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > > > -- Sent from my mobile device
Robert Guerra wrote:
Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for grievances that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN. I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and the benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings.
Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed by those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to the free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very small but active minority. IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's commitment to it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity. - Evan
So, it sounds like all willing to speak up on this issue are in agreement that face to face meetings could be tweaked to be more friendly for local internet user participation as well as participation by those who would like to do so remotely. Cheryl, Evan, Robert, Nick have all made good and specific suggestions for improvements towards these ends. In the recommendations I made for logistics of the Summit, I was also trying to think through what would make participation among those already engaged more effective, and how we might be able to interact with users within the host city, and so forth. Re: Cheryl. I think that participation at ICANN is best looked at as a spectral phenomenon. There are those involved in ICANN who are deeply schooled in internet governance. Those people will always be more willing and able to participate in ICANN meettings as you’ve defined participation. But, what about people who aren’t schooled in ICANN and internet governance? How can the ICANN community engage with them? Most likely far more people would come to a local meeting in their area to check it out and very few of those people are likely to make a continued commitment to participate in ICANN. Ideally, At- Large would have not only multiple channels of participation, but also multiple activities for participation that are tailored to people’s desire and ability to participate. Re: Evan. It’s just a reality that because ICANN meets every 6 months, and because it is a nexus of some power over the internet, people are going to show up foaming at the mouth. It doesn’t surprise me that ICANN and IGF would be fused in users minds. According to Pew Internet Research, a plurality of participants at the IGF meeting (at least those who took the Pew survey) in Brazil believed the United States-- or the West - or the Global North - controls the internet. Those are even broader strokes than ICANN and the IGF. And those are people surveyed one assumes are already deeply engaged in internet governance. Consider what a local net user might be thinking. This is why I believe that it is as important for At-Large to be doing educational outreach as it is to be directly participating in current ICANN policy. Education, but not in a way that says, “Sorry about your concerns, that’s not ICANN’s issue.” If we dismiss people’s world view off-hand, then we will likely be dismissing them too. We have to find the third rail that strides between where users are at and where ICANN is at. Re: Nick. It shouldn’t fall entirely on staff to ensure remote participation. In theory, since we all represent internet users, each ALS shows up with a constituency of internet users whom we are connected with, and presumably we all have channels which we could use to connect with those users during a meeting. Thinking of the Summit, perhaps we could recruit some ALSs to take leadership on creating some alternate channels of communication. Then they’ll be the official channels for participation (hopefully working well!) and also some back up methods. I like the idea of having the RALOS involved in helping out with the remote participation because that helps them to be more connected to those they represent. At the last ARIN meeting, pre-designated ARIN member volunteers monitored an IRC channel during the meetings. It was simple and worked well. The person monitoring brought up questions and comments from remote participants on their behalf. For ICANN, you would want volunteers from multiple languages, but that may be easier to come by than getting complicated technologies to work well. I believe that they used an ordinary webcast for the pushing the meeting content out. -dharma dailey On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Robert Guerra wrote:
Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for grievances that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN.
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and the benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings.
Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed by those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to the free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very small but active minority.
IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's commitment to it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity.
- 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 ------
Hi Dharma Re Ralo as conduit for participation, I ws having exactly that conversation this morning with the head of the TTCS ( my ALS here) re our participation in the Summit - he was thinking to arrange for those of us in Trinidad to get updates, video, skype etc from the rep in Mexico. I will suggest to him that he participate woth you guys inthe summit planning group. Jacqueline Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile. -----Original Message----- From: Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:08:38 To: Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org> Cc: <admin@isoc.sd>; <kieren.mccarthy@icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Letter to the Board So, it sounds like all willing to speak up on this issue are in agreement that face to face meetings could be tweaked to be more friendly for local internet user participation as well as participation by those who would like to do so remotely. Cheryl, Evan, Robert, Nick have all made good and specific suggestions for improvements towards these ends. In the recommendations I made for logistics of the Summit, I was also trying to think through what would make participation among those already engaged more effective, and how we might be able to interact with users within the host city, and so forth. Re: Cheryl. I think that participation at ICANN is best looked at as a spectral phenomenon. There are those involved in ICANN who are deeply schooled in internet governance. Those people will always be more willing and able to participate in ICANN meettings as you’ve defined participation. But, what about people who aren’t schooled in ICANN and internet governance? How can the ICANN community engage with them? Most likely far more people would come to a local meeting in their area to check it out and very few of those people are likely to make a continued commitment to participate in ICANN. Ideally, At- Large would have not only multiple channels of participation, but also multiple activities for participation that are tailored to people’s desire and ability to participate. Re: Evan. It’s just a reality that because ICANN meets every 6 months, and because it is a nexus of some power over the internet, people are going to show up foaming at the mouth. It doesn’t surprise me that ICANN and IGF would be fused in users minds. According to Pew Internet Research, a plurality of participants at the IGF meeting (at least those who took the Pew survey) in Brazil believed the United States-- or the West - or the Global North - controls the internet. Those are even broader strokes than ICANN and the IGF. And those are people surveyed one assumes are already deeply engaged in internet governance. Consider what a local net user might be thinking. This is why I believe that it is as important for At-Large to be doing educational outreach as it is to be directly participating in current ICANN policy. Education, but not in a way that says, “Sorry about your concerns, that’s not ICANN’s issue.” If we dismiss people’s world view off-hand, then we will likely be dismissing them too. We have to find the third rail that strides between where users are at and where ICANN is at. Re: Nick. It shouldn’t fall entirely on staff to ensure remote participation. In theory, since we all represent internet users, each ALS shows up with a constituency of internet users whom we are connected with, and presumably we all have channels which we could use to connect with those users during a meeting. Thinking of the Summit, perhaps we could recruit some ALSs to take leadership on creating some alternate channels of communication. Then they’ll be the official channels for participation (hopefully working well!) and also some back up methods. I like the idea of having the RALOS involved in helping out with the remote participation because that helps them to be more connected to those they represent. At the last ARIN meeting, pre-designated ARIN member volunteers monitored an IRC channel during the meetings. It was simple and worked well. The person monitoring brought up questions and comments from remote participants on their behalf. For ICANN, you would want volunteers from multiple languages, but that may be easier to come by than getting complicated technologies to work well. I believe that they used an ordinary webcast for the pushing the meeting content out. -dharma dailey On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Robert Guerra wrote:
Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for grievances that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN.
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and the benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings.
Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed by those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to the free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very small but active minority.
IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's commitment to it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity.
- 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 ------
------ 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 ------
On Nov 17, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Dharma Re Ralo as conduit for participation, I ws having exactly that conversation this morning with the head of the TTCS ( my ALS here) re our participation in the Summit - he was thinking to arrange for those of us in Trinidad to get updates, video, skype etc from the rep in Mexico. I will suggest to him that he participate woth you guys inthe summit planning group. Jacqueline
Thanks Jaqueline, the more the merrier, IMO. Dharma
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile.
-----Original Message----- From: Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:08:38 To: Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org> Cc: <admin@isoc.sd>; <kieren.mccarthy@icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Letter to the Board
So, it sounds like all willing to speak up on this issue are in agreement that face to face meetings could be tweaked to be more friendly for local internet user participation as well as participation by those who would like to do so remotely.
Cheryl, Evan, Robert, Nick have all made good and specific suggestions for improvements towards these ends.
In the recommendations I made for logistics of the Summit, I was also trying to think through what would make participation among those already engaged more effective, and how we might be able to interact with users within the host city, and so forth.
Re: Cheryl. I think that participation at ICANN is best looked at as a spectral phenomenon. There are those involved in ICANN who are deeply schooled in internet governance. Those people will always be more willing and able to participate in ICANN meettings as you’ve defined participation. But, what about people who aren’t schooled in ICANN and internet governance? How can the ICANN community engage with them? Most likely far more people would come to a local meeting in their area to check it out and very few of those people are likely to make a continued commitment to participate in ICANN. Ideally, At- Large would have not only multiple channels of participation, but also multiple activities for participation that are tailored to people’s desire and ability to participate.
Re: Evan. It’s just a reality that because ICANN meets every 6 months, and because it is a nexus of some power over the internet, people are going to show up foaming at the mouth. It doesn’t surprise me that ICANN and IGF would be fused in users minds. According to Pew Internet Research, a plurality of participants at the IGF meeting (at least those who took the Pew survey) in Brazil believed the United States-- or the West - or the Global North - controls the internet. Those are even broader strokes than ICANN and the IGF. And those are people surveyed one assumes are already deeply engaged in internet governance. Consider what a local net user might be thinking. This is why I believe that it is as important for At-Large to be doing educational outreach as it is to be directly participating in current ICANN policy. Education, but not in a way that says, “Sorry about your concerns, that’s not ICANN’s issue.” If we dismiss people’s world view off-hand, then we will likely be dismissing them too. We have to find the third rail that strides between where users are at and where ICANN is at.
Re: Nick. It shouldn’t fall entirely on staff to ensure remote participation. In theory, since we all represent internet users, each ALS shows up with a constituency of internet users whom we are connected with, and presumably we all have channels which we could use to connect with those users during a meeting. Thinking of the Summit, perhaps we could recruit some ALSs to take leadership on creating some alternate channels of communication. Then they’ll be the official channels for participation (hopefully working well!) and also some back up methods.
I like the idea of having the RALOS involved in helping out with the remote participation because that helps them to be more connected to those they represent. At the last ARIN meeting, pre-designated ARIN member volunteers monitored an IRC channel during the meetings. It was simple and worked well. The person monitoring brought up questions and comments from remote participants on their behalf. For ICANN, you would want volunteers from multiple languages, but that may be easier to come by than getting complicated technologies to work well. I believe that they used an ordinary webcast for the pushing the meeting content out.
-dharma dailey
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Robert Guerra wrote:
Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for grievances that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN.
I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community" bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and the benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would have been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over the last few months on enhancing local user participation at physical meetings.
Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed by those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to the free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very small but active minority.
IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's commitment to it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed opportunity.
- 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 ------
------ 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 (4)
-
Dharma Dailey -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Robert Guerra