[NA-Discuss] Who Are Internet Users?

[Michael Maranda]

This is an excellent discussion - kudos, all!

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Dharma Dailey <dharma at ethoswireless.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------
> 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
> ------
>