[NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?

[Dharma Dailey]

Danny,

  Do you have any sense of the contribution that At-Large made in  
resolving the Register Fly issue?  It would be nice to capture what we  
think works.

I was hoping that posing the questions on issues and users might get  
some folks chiming in on what they see works, what doesn't, what's  
important, what isn't.   Thanks for stepping up.

I can understand how some people might feel that I'm being hopeless  
pedantic.  I accept that.   I'm making this pitch to take a step back  
before we step forward based on my own observations over the past  
year.  I believe there have been instances where disagreements may  
have been avoided if there was greater awareness that we are not all  
operating under the same assumptions about what is important and what  
isn't, what is effective and what isn't.    In other contexts, I have  
seen benefit from identifying those assumptions.  It doesn't mean that  
we all have to get consensus on what a good strategy is, what the most  
important issue is, or even what an internet user is.   Simply knowing  
where "people are coming from," as the boomers say, can be help avoid  
unexpected and therefore more heated disagreements.

  I'm making the pitch now because I believe that spending the next  
few months mapping these things out will make our limited time  
together in Mexico City more effective.   I believe we get the most  
bang for the buck out of the Summit if we spend our time there doing  
things that we can't do online.  F2F is important for building trust,  
for resolving conflict, for making decisions on strategy and for  
honest evaluation.  Online is good for sharing factual information and  
identifying points of convergence/ divergence of opinion.   I believe  
if we fill in the blanks in somewhat methodical way between now and  
then ,  we'll  have deeper, more productive time in person.    I  
proposed *a* framing for placing issues, but the framing is  
arbitrary.  The real point is to have some working way for us as  
NARALO to discuss the *relative* importance of an issue vis a vis  
users, the *relative* value of a particular strategy, and so forth.    
I'm not thinking of a be all, end all document.  Something rough,  
disposable, maybe something we throw away after we've used it, is just  
fine.   It's really about preparing us to work together well through  
the Summit.

You bring up some interesting points.   In the case of Register Fly,  
we have a situation that clearly impacts internet users who have  
registered domain names.    There was a real clarity about what the  
problem was. The accusations against the registery were numerous and  
assert that domains were suspended for spurious reasons.  In my matrix  
that would be a high impact to a subset of internet users - those who  
were using Register Fly as their domain registry.   You have a  
situation that clearly impacts users and clearly ICANN is a main  
decision maker in resolving the problems for internet users.    There  
is also a sense of urgency on the issue because of the seriousness of  
the allegations.   I think your analogy for this situation for this  
type of situation is accurate.  The strategy you describe for  
mobilizing around such an issue is a time tested one.

ICANN issues like Register Fly are relatively easy to sort out because  
at the end of the day it comes down to a rather Boolean analysis:  Did  
you, Register Fly, break your contractual obligations with ICANN?
   The US courts, Register Fly and ICANN make up the the short list of  
characters that the Register Fly plot turns on.    There are other  
issues which effect internet users where ICANN is not the as  
influential.   In those cases mobilizing a town hall  to influence  
ICANN won't necessarily change the outcomes for internet users.

For example, think of all the different actors involved in IPv6  
transition.   The entities who have to change behavior, equipment,  
possibly even business practices is in the tens of thousands.  They  
cross many geolpolitical borders.  They are in many different  
socioeconomic circumstances.   It's hard  to assess what impact IPv6  
transition has on internet users.  That means that it takes a lot more  
of an investment of time and resources to see things through on behalf  
of internet users. To use your analogy, it's the difference between  
organizing for/against a highway across your front door and organizing  
for better planning around all highways built on earth in the next 30  
years.   The IPv6 is more abstract, less immediate, harder to measure  
overall impact, harder to understand how any one actor involved  
influences any other actor.   In all a good bit more complicated.    
There is a much steeper commitment for those that want to get see  
through such issues than showing up at a town hall.

Another key difference is between an issue like Register Fly and IPv6,  
it's  lot easier to look backward -- "Hey this registry isn't working  
the way it should!" than looking forward --  "This is the best way to  
continue to grow the internet."


Danny, a point of interest to me which  you bring up, is this role of  
the technical expert and how they interact with "internet users."  On  
the whole, I think the challenge for At-Large -- as well as all of  
those who advocate for democratic leadership of the internet - turns  
on how well the flow of information is able to travel back and forth  
between different types of expertise.   In the case of Register Fly,  
the issues weren't technical, they were business / contractual  
issues.   In the realm of communications policy which I'm most  
familiar, analog radio policy in the US, I've seen technical arguments  
very successfully cloak political and economic agenda.   If you can't  
win an open argument for a business practice-- at least in the US--  
one good strategy is to try to blow smoke around the technical  
aspects.   When people are in doubt about what to do, they tend to do  
nothing- or they fall back on their bias.   The more complicated the  
technical argument is, the more time, talent, and money it takes to  
wade through the merits of it.   It takes a different level of  
tenacity to maintain public engagement in those circumstances.   When  
there are genuine public benefit trade offs turning around on  
competing technical choices, all bets are off.

Completely off topic:  There IS a raised highway that goes over where  
my great-great grandmother's house was.  It's a strange feeling  
knowing that my great-grandmother, her sisters and brothers were  
conceived, born and raised on a patch of pavement that I drive over.   
I've dreamt about being in that house though it was destroyed years  
before I was born.


Best Regards,
Dharma


On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Dharma,
>
> Please consider the following analogy.
>
> A state decides to build a new highway.  The new highway will  
> displace hundreds of citizens in the proposed path of the highway.   
> Citizens become aware of the situation and many become angry.   
> Preliminary Town Hall meetings are convened.  Citizens vent their  
> rage.  Citizens form ad hoc Homeowner Association constituent  
> groups.  The Ad Hoc groups pay for impact studies and then offer up  
> counter-proposals.  Over the course of time, a few experts emerge  
> from this community that understand the technical elements (highway  
> grading concerns, watershed considerations, etc.).  These few people  
> wind up representing the impacted citizens in front of Planning  
> Boards and the Highway Commissions.  Ultimately a decision is  
> reached regarding the highway.  Some grumble and complain but  
> eventually all accept whatever decision is reached.  The ad hoc  
> groups dissolve, the experts return to other duties, and life goes  
> on until the State makes its next bad decision on some
> other topic.  Rinse and repeat.
>
> When major issues arise (such as the RegisterFly debacle) users have  
> demonstrated that they no difficulty finding their way to ICANN.   
> All that is needed is:
>
> 1.  A Town Hall opportunity so that concerns can be laid out.
> 2.  A workspace within which ad-hoc coalitions can work to propose  
> solutions
> 3.  A few experts that can contribute regarding technical  
> considerations
> 4.  A clear process that outlines how a decision will be reached.
>
> There is no need to "grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies  
> among internet users".  Users will come forward when a situation  
> warrants action.  We have sufficient proof that this occurs.
>
> Our sole goal should be to ensure that modalities are in place to  
> allow for impacted parties to have their say, and to be able to  
> contribute to a solution-set if they are inclined to participate.
>
>
> best wishes,
> Danny
>
>
>