[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Letter to the Board

[Dharma Dailey]

So, it sounds like all willing to speak up on this issue are in  
agreement that face to face meetings could be tweaked to be more  
friendly for local internet user participation as well as  
participation by those who would like to do so remotely.

Cheryl, Evan, Robert, Nick have all made good and specific suggestions  
for improvements towards these ends.

In the recommendations I made for logistics of the Summit, I was also  
trying to think through what would make participation among those  
already engaged more effective, and how we might be able to interact  
with users within the host city, and so forth.

Re: Cheryl.  I think that participation at ICANN is best looked at as  
a spectral phenomenon.   There are those involved in ICANN who are  
deeply schooled in internet governance.  Those people will always be  
more willing and able to participate in ICANN meettings as you’ve  
defined participation.  But, what about people who aren’t schooled in  
ICANN and internet governance?  How can the ICANN community engage  
with them?   Most likely far more people would come to a local meeting  
in their area to check it out and very few of those people are likely  
to make a continued commitment to participate in ICANN.  Ideally, At- 
Large would have not only multiple channels of participation, but also  
multiple activities for participation that are tailored to people’s  
desire and ability to participate.

Re: Evan.   It’s just a reality that because ICANN meets every 6  
months, and because it is a nexus of some power over the internet,  
people are going to show up foaming at the mouth.  It doesn’t surprise  
me that ICANN and IGF would be fused in users minds.  According to Pew  
Internet Research, a plurality of participants at the IGF meeting (at  
least those who took the Pew survey)  in Brazil believed the United  
States-- or the West - or the Global North -  controls the internet.   
Those are even broader strokes than ICANN and the IGF.  And those are  
people surveyed one assumes are already deeply engaged in internet  
governance.  Consider what a local net user might be thinking.   This  
is why I believe that it is as important for At-Large to be doing  
educational outreach as it is to be directly participating in current  
ICANN policy.   Education, but not in a way that says, “Sorry about  
your concerns, that’s not ICANN’s issue.”  If we dismiss people’s  
world view off-hand, then we will likely be dismissing them too.   We  
have to find the third rail that strides between where users are at  
and where ICANN is at.

Re: Nick.  It shouldn’t fall entirely on staff to ensure remote  
participation.  In theory, since we all represent internet users, each  
ALS shows up with a constituency of internet users whom we are  
connected with, and presumably we all have channels which we could use  
to connect with those users during a meeting.  Thinking of the Summit,  
perhaps we could recruit some ALSs to take leadership on creating some  
alternate channels of communication.  Then they’ll be the official  
channels for participation (hopefully working well!)  and also some  
back up methods.

I like the idea of having the RALOS involved in helping out with the  
remote participation because that helps them to be more connected to  
those they represent.  At the last ARIN meeting, pre-designated ARIN  
member volunteers monitored an IRC channel during the meetings.   It  
was simple and worked well.   The person monitoring brought up  
questions and comments from remote participants on their behalf.   For  
ICANN, you would want volunteers from multiple languages, but that may  
be easier to come by than getting complicated technologies to work  
well.   I believe that they used an ordinary webcast for the pushing  
the meeting content out.

-dharma dailey





On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Robert Guerra wrote:
>> Let me make it cleat that iaftereveral months of calls, conference
>> calls, and or planning I was - well quite disappointed by the lack of
>> attendance of the local cao bloggers. Yes a video w made, bit it is
>> not the interacte learning experience that I had hoped their presence
>> throuhout the meeting would have achieved.
>>
>
> That's being kind. By the end of the week I was feeling as if we were
> exploited by those merely looking to use us as a soapbox for  
> grievances
> that were incapable of being addressed by ICANN.
>
> I was disgusted by the fact that NOT one of the "local community"
> bothered to attend the actual conference. Perhaps they would have
> understood, having done so, that ICANN is not IGF. There was little we
> could have done for their cause short of embarassing the hosts, and  
> the
> benefits of that would have been far outweighed by the negatives.
>
>> There are grave issues facing internet users in egypt and it would  
>> have been ideal to hear it first hand from a variety of them during
>> the meeting. Thing could have been done better - for sure. Things  
>> also could have worked out far better if one or more persons would  
>> have
>> been keen eniugh to follow up to and respond to my messages over  
>> the last few months on enhancing local user participation at  
>> physical meetings.
>>
>
> Robert, you were the one who claimed to have contacts in the local
> community. While I am completely sympathetic in the message conveyed  
> by
> those we met, I suspect that most local Internet users were left
> unawares. How widely spread were your contacts; were they limited to  
> the
> free-speech advocates to the exclusion of others? Do Egyptian Internet
> users not have the same concerns about phishing, name abuse and IDNs
> (etc) as others? Where were they? I have no idea whether those you
> attracted to the event represent a mainstream view or just a very  
> small
> but active minority.
>
> IMO this is a challenge for At-Large and a test of ICANN's  
> commitment to
> it. Starving At-Large for outreach resources -- even because of the
> Summit -- prevents At-Large from doing its critical job of finding the
> point of view of non-activists. Every ICANN conference at which we do
> not attract a few potential local ALSs represents a missed  
> opportunity.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> ------
> 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
> ------