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

[Dharma Dailey]

On Nov 17, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

> Hi Dharma
> Re Ralo as conduit for participation, I ws having exactly that  
> conversation this morning with the head of the TTCS ( my ALS here)   
> re our participation in the Summit - he was thinking to arrange for  
> those of us in Trinidad to get updates, video, skype etc from the  
> rep in Mexico. I will suggest to him that he participate woth you  
> guys inthe summit planning group.
> Jacqueline

Thanks Jaqueline, the more the merrier, IMO.

Dharma



>
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device available from bmobile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dharma Dailey <dharma at ethoswireless.com>
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:08:38
> To: Evan Leibovitch<evan at telly.org>
> Cc: <admin at isoc.sd>; <kieren.mccarthy at icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide<at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> >; <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large]  Letter to the Board
>
>
>
> 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
>> ------
>
> ------
> 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
> ------