[At-Large] (not really about) Travel Funding

[Hong Xue]

It is even more difficult for Asians to take apart in the "list
discussion", not only because we are sky of our "plain English" or we
are not skin-thickety for such virtual tomato-fight, but we acutely
feel that we are not accepted by the main stream here. The messages we
took time to write and post were most probably un-responded,
overlooked or (susceptibly) trashed. Our views are not heard and not
taken into account. Our voices echo in the sound of silence. I'm not
going to use any concrete example to upset anyone for I believe in
Confucianism, which mandates tolerance as the core value. But I do
hope the cultural environment could change and become friendly to the
participants for any part of the world.

 --
Hong Xue, Ph.D.
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law
Beijing Normal University
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China





On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> I too do not understand why most of the discussion that occurs on this
>> mailing list come from North America and Europe.
> It is not surprising that so many Americans within ICANN just don't
> grasp what they're dealing with in attempts to empower the global user
> community. What comes naturally to ICANN old-timers (mostly Europeans
> and North Americans)  is, literally, quite foreign to the very people
> ICANN is trying to attract.
>
> As Danny time after time after time rails against the perceived lack of
> communications between ALS and RALO, or between ALS and ALS members, he
> shows total ignorance of what could be a cultural deference to
> leadership, or a difficulty to translate complex technical concepts well
> beyond ICANN's official list of languages. There is a significant number
> of people in the global community who find the direct and often personal
> tone of email used by .... well, Europeans and North Americans ... to be
> at worst highly offensive and at least highly intimidating. Many refuse
> to take their first steps into our forums, knowing that if they say the
> "wrong" thing they'll be at the receiving end of a nastygram the likes
> of which are miles beyond the kind of discourse they're ready to have.
>
> There's an assumption in the kinds of posts that Danny, Milton and Robyn
> (and many others, including myself on occasion) have been making, that
> the audience for these messages have thick virtual skins and are
> supposed to appreciate direct (to the point of crude) speech.
>
> That assumption is a mistake, which I believe is directly attributable
> for the limits on the discussion you see.
>
> Not every culture empowers individuals or encourages free thought (let
> alone free speech).
> In some cultures politeness and respect is the norm, and rudeness is
> just shunned as vulgar and/or uneducated.
> Not all NGOs operate in the communications style of what is generally
> known as "civil society" (which more often than not is quite uncivil).
> And ... guess what ... some people, and some cultures, simply
> communicate better face to face, where eye contact and tone of voice
> matter ... just imagine!!
>
> What this means, of course, is that those who bemoan the lack of
> participation actually help to cause it by belittling those who are
> already here.
> They complain that the system is useless as they actively work to _make_
> it useless. Moaning incessantly about what hasn't been done but
> withholding even faint praise for what has been done.
> "No good deed goes unpunished" and all that...
>
> But it's not just At-Large's own self-destructive elements. There is
> also much .. for lack of a better term .. "cultural imperialism" reeking
> from the way ICANN itself does things. Hasn't it ever bothered anyone
> that, despite all the exotic locales ICANN meets in, it never lifts a
> finger to assist local RALOs to engage in ALS recruitment at these
> meetings? Does it not bother anyone that there's not a single ALS from
> Russia? Are the existing volunteers supposed to burn their own cash to
> make this happen?
>
> The At-Large Community, for all its newly-perceived maturity, is still
> treated as an incapable offspring. ICANN still distrusts the grassroots
> enough to require that one-third of ALAC must be parachuted in. (During
> the ALAC Review there were proposals to *increase* proportion of
> unelected reps, but never did I see any proposals to make ALAC
> all-elected taken seriously.) ALAC has _zero_ discretionary spending of
> its own, every dollar it gets -- whether for travel or outreach or
> research -- is accomplished through a process that's effectively just
> refined begging. When ICANN adds staff on our behalf it doesn't ask what
> *we* need staff to help with, those decisions are made on our behalf.
> And don't even get me started on translation policies.
>
> If you want to dig even deeper, let's not forget the basic difficulties
> presented by ICANN's schizophrenic public-involvement face... if someone
> from the "public" wants to get involved and doesn't know anything about
> ICANN do they enter through At-Large, NCUC, or Kieren's office? The
> lines and reasons that distinguish one from the others are vague and
> confusing, especially to those not yet versed in ICANN culture. For
> anyone with difficulty in English, forget it.
>
> But dealing with ICANN's cultural impediments is a different and
> longer-term issue. Being more welcoming is something we can do for
> ourselves.
>
>> It may well be that other areas and other people are aggregating,
>> discussing, debating, and acting outside of the A-R-A (ALAC-RALO-ALS)
>> mechanism.  I would not find that surprising.
>
> I was saddened to read the exchange on "civility" being held over at the
> Ombudsman's blog (https://omblog.icann.org/?p=192). On one side are
> Frank and Kieren arguing that codes of conduct must be more strictly
> applied; on the other Milton, Robyn and Avri assert that arbitrary
> bounds of civil behaviour are unfair and stifle expression.
>
> Neither side has it right. Treating this as a regulatory matter (i.e.,
> codes of conduct) only encourages disobedience from those who already
> see themselves as repressed. And those who defend the right to be
> abusive just don't get that their style is severely *narrowing* their
> intended audience.
>
> People need to realize that being civil and positive in ICANN-related
> conversation isn't just a good idea because of codes of conduct. Being
> civil, polite and positive is an act of inclusion and welcoming. Maybe
> it is more difficult to make a polite and assertive ALAC argument, just
> as it's harder to tell a good clean joke. But the effort is not just
> worthwhile, it's critical.
>
> Being "mad as hell [...]" may work personally for some, and I'll agree
> that in some circumstances it may even be the preferred style to enact
> change. But not everyone works that way, or -- more importantly -- is
> willing to work with those who work that way. Is your insistence on a
> certain style worth alienating scores of others who may -- to you -- be
> too meek or slow to act, but each deserve as much of a seat at the table
> as you?
>
> - Evan
>
> Disclaimer: As a white male North American, I am likely not the best
> observer of cultural imperialism on this list. But, as someone who has
> had the fortune to travel extensively (pre-ICANN) and handle
> negotiations in many different locales, I hope my perspective may be useful.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at 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
>