[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective

Nadira Alaraj nadira.araj at gmail.com
Sun Aug 11 03:07:36 UTC 2019


Inline

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 01:59 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> At 10/08/2019 04:00 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread.
>
> The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual
> non-registrant end-users.
>
>
> The Bylaws do not restrict us to non-registrants.
>

Yes I know but intentionally I included the "non-registrant" to emphasise
this particular point given the overall structure of ICANN.

> However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are
> facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged
> into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the
> online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing
> At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me
> that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in
> spite they are experience in corporate governance.
>
>
> There are two things at play here. 1) The At-Large web and wiki presence
> is daunting and needs real, focused work; 2) ICANN has a narrow focus and
> may well not be for everyone, no matter how good or technical they are, or
> how well we do (someday??) present ourselves.
>

In my example it was 1) according to the feedback I got from this outsider.
They expected to read a certain simplified issue in one single flow of
concept all throughout than branching into different elaborated pages. (An
initiative to work on)

> Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user
> is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey
> design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson.
>
>
> I'm not sure. I think our challenge is to put things in the terms that a
> relatively small number of people, each of whom UNDERSTAND their individual
> user perspective, can contribute. A world like ours always needs champions
> to speak of behalf of their larger constituencies.
>

Agree under the assumption that they are not only understanding their
individual user perspective but not attempting to push an agenda, if it
happens that they're in affiliation with other stakeholders.

>
> But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the
> voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the
> intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't
> see this is happening.
>
>
> And that is the substance of Issue #2 of the At-Large Review - and work is
> just about to begin on that!
>
Fingers crossed and I volunteered in one related WG.

>
> Alan
>
>
> I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email.
>
> Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid.
> Best wishes to all,
> Nadira
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck < JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
> Olivier,
> While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree, I'm
> sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first principles:
> advocating for the interests of individual end users and, when there's a
> conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, we side
> with the non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax.
>
> How we determine those interests is a separate and important question for
> which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a relevant
> experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first principles or we
> will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need to have the discipline
> to let things go that are already being said or are not directly relevant
> to the end user experience around the world.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com >; Jonathan Zuck <
> JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion:
> End-users definition from At-large perspective
>
> Dear Evan,
>
> I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to
> achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to be
> engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything it does
> - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review and it's too
> late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember the Wars of
> Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I
> invite these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in and
> help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the incredibly
> talented people that have done so recently in this Working Group and that
> are spending a considerable amount of time contributing to the ICANN
> multi-stakeholder policy processes.
>
> When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other
> constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one of
> these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is a
> totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen. The
> world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice or
> nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them in a
> box/jail.
>
> Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping
> ourselves into a frenzy.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
> I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to
> represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants.
>
>
> That was my original point -- That there is a body already within ICANN
> representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory leaving
> ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant end-users.
> That the body charged with representing registrants is remiss in its duty
> should not be ALAC's problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC
> to be remiss in ITS duty.
>
> The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion Internet
> users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even assuming only
> three domains per registrant (and we know that is very far from reality),
> registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet
> ALAC has a problem because of its high proportion of self-selectred
> Internet experts and insiders, most of whom either own a domain or have
> evaluated the need to have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against
> the non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply don't share their
> experience. The original theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way
> through which non-registrants would be able to participate in large
> numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out
> to be self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or
> tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such
> participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but without the
> perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never own a domain. And
> without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the non-registrant 95%,
> ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably it's already shot and needs a
> reboot).
>
> A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out: The
> NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections non-registrants as at least
> a token effort at balance. ALAC outreach needs to find people who are
> interested in end user issues who have no interest in buying domains. ALAC
> itself must commit to understand its issues through a non-registrant lens
> before choosing to comment on them. Longer term ALAC needs to engage in
> public surveys and research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather
> than its own elitist sense of what is right for end users. I daresay that
> the priorities of the billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly
> from ALAC's current guesses.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (
> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> Service
> (
> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link
> above to change your membership status or configuration, including
> unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
> altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190811/ce90e2e1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list