[NA-Discuss] ICANN Discussion Lists are For ICANN Discussion

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Dharma,
> I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that
> you had.   I thought,  "This is an informative, clearly written piece
> on an important issue that concerns internet users which is
> understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be
> doing on ICANN issues."  -and I learned something from it.
That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the
concern of my post.

> I respectfully object to your concept of what is appropriate for this
> list.  This list is called "North America DISCUSS."   The only 
> constant about internet users is that they are always changing in
> usage patterns, in demographics, and in expectations.   How are we to
> represent internet users effectively in ICANN or elsewhere if we
> aren't up to speed on what's going on out there?

Here is my rationale.

Lack of focus is IMO one of the largest impediments to ALAC
effectiveness. ALAC, and ICANN in general, are doing a pretty miserable
job on the issues that are even within its very limited mandate. ICANN
is not the Internet Governance Forum, a place for all kinds of
Internet-related discussions including an Internet users Bill of Rights,
etc.

We are having a hard enough time understanding the complexities of
ICANN; in the last call it was clear that matters such as the
reconstitution of the GNSO, and its effect on public input, can be
complex enough to make peoples' eyes glaze over or -- worse -- tune out.
In that regard I am concentrating on that over which NARALO has (or at
least is supposed to have) influence.

It is important to respect the time of volunteers, and that means
limiting the flow of mail to that which is directly relevant. If someone
is interested in knowing about news related to spam reduction, there are
FAR better places than the NARALO list. As you say, we're intelligent
people; most of us are capable of belonging to multiple communities with
differing foci. I would rather point people interested in spam to forums
in which that is the main point of discussion.

I'm sure that most people here, at one time or another, would also want
to know what's the best printer for their needs. That awareness would
also lead to more effective Internet users, and I'm sure that there are
people on this list who might be qualifies to answer that question --
but that too is beyond the scope of this list. Rather than draw an
arbitrary boundary about what is relevant *enough*, I have sought to
keep a sharp focus on ICANN and matters on which NARALO can directly
affect policy.

> Glenn posted a message to a discussion list, he wasn't standing in
> front of the board telling them that ICANN should change it's mission
> to saving the whales.

Actually, we *did* get close to that in Cairo, with a NARALO member
trying extremely hard to get free-speech issues on the conference
agenda. In retrospect we found that doing so would have severely damaged
ICANN's reputation and effectiveness in that region without giving it
any capacity to address the (very real) rights issues.

So yes, I do have a concern for things getting out of hand, because in a
very real sense it very nearly happened with potentially dangerous
consequences. Glenn's message of course was not on that scale, but the
Cairo events have sensitized me to some of the potential dangers of
going off-topic.

> I don't recall a decision by NARALO to limit topics on the NARALO
> list.  If one exists, can you please reference it?
Article #1 of the NARALO Operating Principles, to which all the original
ALS representatives (including yourself) signed off, states:

"NARALO promotes and assures the North American user participation in
the ICANN policy development process."

That is why we're here. And since there is only a single NARALO-specific
mailing list, I believe that the list serves that specific purpose.

Now, if there is interest in a second list with the same initial
membership that existed to discuss other Internet-related matters beyond
ICANN's mandate, I would not object. Nor do I have any problems with
using the NARALO skype channel for any kind of discussions of relevance
to its members.

I am just suggesting that -- in the interests of maintaining focus and
minimizing list traffic (for the benefit of those who are subscribed to
dozens of lists) -- we keep this list specific to ICANN-targeted matters.

There are far better places for more generalized discussion than this.

> Members of NARALO are intelligent adults, it should be a matter of
> their discretion what the list is used for.   If you cut off
> discussion, you cut off fresh ideas, fresh perspectives.

May be. But right now we have a hard enough time stimulating discussion
and getting fresh perspectives on the issues which DO need treatment
here. Meanwhile, debating issues over which ICANN has no authority
cannot result in followup action that we can implement.

> Who decides what is important and relevant?
IMO, the ICANN mandate as defined by its Board. It's essentially a
naming and numbering organization. The nature of the names, the
responsibilities of their buyers and sellers, and the rights of their
users are the main focus.

> Please don't assume that because you have a conceptual framework for
> what is in ICANN's domain and what isn't  that everyone has that same
> conceptual framework in their own head.

To me, that domain was fairly well defined before At-Large was created.

But my stance isn't based on an anal interpretation of what the bounds
should be. It's based on my observation that ICANN can't even execute
its existing self-defined mandate. Before we should consider expanding
ICANN's vision there's a very large and messy house, already in place,
that needs to get in order.

> Even for issues which are clearly in ICANN's domain, we shouldn't
> automatically assume that trying to influence the ICANN board or other
> members of the ICANN community is the most effective way to net a
> positive outcome for internet users.

Again, I'll refer back to NARALO Operating Principle #1. Affecting ICANN
policy development is *the* reason NARALO exists. Our diverse mix of
members will have numerous motivations and agendas. But the defined role
of NARALO -- the one we signed up for -- is neither assumed nor ambiguous.

The visionary discussions you describe are happening all the time within
areas such as the IGF and ISOC; we need not seek to duplicate their
space nor their members' good work. NARALO by contrast has a specific
purpose and focus, though the convergence of some interests explains the
significant cross-pollenation between IGF, ISOC and At-Large.

> In my conceptual map, I believe positive change for internet users vis
> a vis ICANN will be effected by having more internet users know what
> ICANN is, what decisions fall at it's door, current topics of
> importance.   But no one in ICANN, or At-Large, or anywhere else can
> dictate to internet users what they believe to be important.

Agreed. But they can (and do) say "if, upon consideration,  what you
think is important relates directly to our mission, please come advise
us. Otherwise there are better and more effective forums to address your
needs."

> By far and away among those that I work with --community based
> networks, community media outfits, and media policy groups comprised
> of traditionally marginalized populations---- the absolute number one
> concern is Access, followed by Net Neutrality -- which they as  view
> as subset of access.   Which is why, when I hear the argument -- which
> I'm sure you've all heard- that ICANN issues doesn't have anything to
> do with internet users, I don't argue.
In your context I wouldn't argue that either, because there's little
ICANN has to do with those issues. It's a naming and numbering
organization, whose issues often affect the public in obscure manner.

(Of course, in other parts of the world, access *is* natively an ICANN
concern when people can't use their first language and character set for
Internet domain names.)

> It  seems that I am in a minority in believing that educating internet
> users is at least as important as writing positions to the board on
> current issues,

On ICANN issues (as elsewhere), education is a pre-requisite of informed
advice; belief in this is hardly a minority stance. But ICANN is in no
position to offer -- or even stimulate -- highly relevant education
outside of its domains of expertise. It's having a hard enough time
providing useful resources on fields which *are* its core mandate.

> All I ask is that simple accommodation is made-  such as space for
> discussion on the email list for issues of concern to internet users- 
> which allows that work to progress.

And all I'm saying in reply is that there are many other more-useful
spaces than NA-Discuss for topics outside of ICANN's core mandate.
Duplicating the good work of others who have provided and populate those
existing spaces, while dulling the focus of NARALO discussion, does a
disservice to both the generalists and the focused.

What do others here think?

- Evan