[NA-Discuss] Money is not the problem, ICANN is not the answer

[Dharma Dailey]

Hey Folks,

Catching up on the emails flying around here.  You all sure do love  
to communicate!

There are a number of things that I'd like to chime in on

Regarding budget.      In a just world funding should go to increase  
participation to those who wouldn't be able to participate  
otherwise.    I am guessing that is the rationale for why ALSs are  
funded to participate.  I'm not clear what the difference is between  
the NCUC and the ALAC membership, but I am very clear that there are  
a number of differences between large funded NGOs and mom and pop  
volunteer organizations.  I have spent all of my adult life working  
among those groups that are largely sweat equity rich and cash equity  
poor.  I, for one, would not have been able to attend the San Juan  
meeting if I wasn't funded.   I always try to keep in mind that  
privilege is relative.  I am on the "right" side of the digital  
divide, safe, and well fed.  I am privileged that I am able to spend  
my time volunteering.    We (north americans) are relatively capable  
of reaching into the air and pulling out the kind of money that it  
would take to get 16 of us to Los Angeles  4 months from now.     
Reality is, there are more burning problems in the world than IPv6  
transition and truth be told there may be better places for that  
money to go.


There are many examples of great things being achieved with careful  
use of limited resources.  For example,  the people who got the laws  
changed on low power community radio in the states: a typical  
conference for them would be held in a church - free space, meals  
provided by donation and volunteers- free food, and many people  
sleeping in the church or as guests in local volunteers homes - free  
housing.  We have made  a dent in policy in a way that is  
unconventional by conventional political wisdom, but is tried and  
true practice for grassroots organizers.


My rationale for taking a poll on the list of who wants to go to LA  
and who doesn't was for the very purpose of coming up with a hard  
cost figure for what it would take for us to have a face to face  
meeting in LA.   This hard cost figure is bound to be a fraction of  
2000 per person- with the possible exception of our lady in Ninuvet.


Why we need a face to face meeting.


They say that time is money, but they are wrong. I reiterate: reality  
is, there are more burning problems in the world than IPv6 transition  
and truth be told there may be better places for that money to go.   
It seems like most of the people who are currently involved in  
internet governance in meaningful ways are vested parties-- money is  
more precious to them- because their livelihood is on the line.  If  
you want to get more people involved in internet governance who  
aren't vested, then by good old Aristotelian logic that means you'll  
be looking for folks to spend their time.  And if you truly want  
that, then you have to meet them on their own turf.  You have to do  
the work of translating why the stuff that you care about -- internet  
governance-- has a compelling and direct relationship to the stuff  
they care about -- their ability to communicate.


This is no small task.  How many of you would go to a workshop on  
engineering standards for  municipal water systems or public land  
management?  Most people have *other things on their minds.* They  
don't have time to take up every single conceivable good cause that  
might be lurking behind a mountain of technobabble bureaucratisms.


To my mind, the ICANN policy of not facilitating participation from  
ALSs in all ICANN meetings that are within that ALSs region is, as my  
grandmother would say,  "penny wise and pound foolish."    There is a  
huge educational opportunity  for people to learn about internet  
governance when 600 people pop into their town who all happen to know  
more about the internet than god.   ALSs have signed an agreement to  
get greater participation from the public in the ICANN process.   
Disinclining ALSs from attending ICANN meetings is cutting them off   
1) from their ability to learn what they need to know to do fulfill  
their mandate, 2) cutting them off from their best opportunity to  
create timely public events, timely press, and so forth that take  
advantage of the greater ICANN community being in a given locale and  
3) the ability to move things forward that can only be moved forward  
in person.


However, even if ICANN doesn't see the value of picking up the tab on  
a cheap date, I see a bigger common interest among the NA RALO  
folks.    Our common thread is that we are all interested in more  
communication for more people AND we all believe that the structure  
of a communication platform affects what is conveyed.  (Is that bland  
and generic to cover all 16 of our interests?) In addition, we are  
working under similar constraints and similar opportunities in terms  
of broader policy and economics. (US and Canadian telecomm policy, BB  
policy, etc.)    We built trust when we met face to face.  But we  
only began to pose the questions of what we might do together.  To my  
mind the next step down that road is to do that work of translating  
what the value is- and where the value is- in people getting involved  
in internet governance.   I believe that the people who are currently  
involved in NA RALO are as good a cross section as we're likely to  
get involved in internet governance issues in North America at this  
stage.  And I believe we have the potential to make some valuable  
contributions to public understanding and participation in internet  
governance.  Implementation can happen online, but strategy happens  
face to face.  And we need the prelude to strategy which is education  
on specific issues of internet governance _as well as_  specific  
concerns of internet usage -- or lack thereof!!- that internet  
users-- or potential users!!!-- actually care about.  The second part  
is what the ALSs are supposed to be bringing to the table.  We aren't  
going to get that from an issue brief written by a technology  
journalist.   To do our work we need to understand both.

Doubling up:

What I had in mind was that we would all “work our way” to the next  
ICANN meeting by all taking on a public outreach role.  “Public  
forums” held in the middle of the day at hotels are not so public.   
Public= library, school, street corner... Public= times when people  
are free. Public= using language familiar to the public to explain  
what you have to say.  Public= doing your homework  to find out what  
questions people want addressed and people who can answer those  
questions.   I think a fair compromise for LA would be for ICANN to  
accept NA RALOs free labor in organzing public events concurrent with  
the LA ICANN meeting and creating documentation on the work that we  
do as a group on ICANN related issues concurrent with the conference  
by supplying us with no frills travel to LA and admittance to the  
conference.  In exchange for fulfilling these MOU items, we would get  
the privilege of meeting together to plan more strategic ways of  
working together.  In addition, we would be able to take advantage of  
the collective intelligence of the greater ICANN community to inform  
our actions.

Paraphrasing Pascal:  I would have made this letter shorter, but I  
didn’t have the time.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070713/7a6097e8/attachment-0001.html