[NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?
Dharma Dailey
dharma at ethoswireless.com
Tue Nov 4 09:17:42 EST 2008
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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >
>> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> > ------
>>
>>
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
>>
>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list