[ga] Teleconference

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to comment on Roberto Gaetano's remarks.  Roberto states:  http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00951.html
 
"As for the teleconference before the meeting, I have mixed feelings. If the purpose is to present the agenda and to gather feedback, a teleconference might be an overkill. If, on the other hand, what we are aiming for is to set a precedent for having open teleconferences for discussion, and therefore interaction among all participants, I would prefer to discuss the implications of this choice before making a decision.  The problem is, IMHO, scaleability. I am sympathetic to John's experience as Mayor of his small village. However, I could hardly see the same approach working for Los Angeles. We are addressing an AtLarge community that now happens to count a number of active members that are even outnumbered by the inhabitants of John's village, but we cannot think that the size will remain that small. As a matter of fact, if we do believe that the numbers will remain on this order of magnitude, we might as well close the shop right now and go home.  In other words, we need !
to design
 and propose solutions that work for Los Angeles, not for a small village."
 
I totally disagree with Roberto.  By comparison I look at the GNSO Business Constituency.  This is a group that purportedly represents the millions upon millions of businesses throughout the world.  It currently has 32 members.  If you subtract those constituency members that have no interest in any DNS issues other than Intellectual Property concerns (and should frankly be in another constituency), and then eliminate those businesses that only signed up in order to become future registry operators, and then subtract those businesses that participate solely because they are associated with ICANN insiders or act as fronts for registrars, then at best you will have remaining a mere handful of firms most of whom never participate on the BC discussion list -- I speak from experience as my wife's firm was formerly a BC member and privy to the almost total lack of discussion on the BC list.  
 
So, if the millions upon millions of worldwide businesses are represented by only a very very few people (and the ICANN Board deems this to be acceptable), why then should we expect the At-Large community to be any different?  Why should we ever expect a massive city-sized turnout of individuals that are prepared to swim through a sea of acronyms: ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF, IESG, IRTF, IANA, W3C, ETSI, ASO, NRO, GAC, ALAC, DNSO, GNSO, ccNSO.  
 
Why should we think that infrastructure policy is so fascinating to the average man in the street, that he will rise up in a massive hoard and passionately join deliberations on registrar contract compliance issues, or ruminate over the titillating nuances of the IRIS protocol and its implications for WHOIS policy?  
 
It's not going to happen.  It will never happen.  When the Non-Commercial Constituency was formed it rapidly accrued close to 120 member organizations; they now have only 37 remaining on their roster of members.  If anything, public interest in ICANN's activities is diminishing, not expanding, and the only scalability issue that we face is the need to scale down.
 
The ALAC only needs to accommodate the participation of a limited number of activists that choose to represent the interests of the public, in much the same manner that the business constituency needs to accommodate the participation of activist Marilyn Cade who no longer represents AT&T but rather represents only herself as an individual businesswoman.
 
On a final note, just because activist participation is limited doesn't mean that we should just close the shop and go home.  Participation is limited for a number of very obvious reasons:
 
I don't know about you, but as an individual I can't afford to spend close to $6000 a year on travel/hotels/etc. just to influence the ICANN Board; neither can i give up over three weeks of vacation time yearly and deny my family their needs just to periodically confer with ALAC committee members that have virtually no policy-formulating power whatsoever within the ICANN structure. 
 
The at-large will never show up in droves at ALAC meetings; they never showed up in droves at General Assembly sessions either.  Pragmatic realities are such that at-large participation will invariably be remote.  Recently, Milton Mueller's Convergence Center demonstrated the facile use of Elluminate conferencing software in sessions held both in Syracuse and in Geneva.  If you want a reasonable suggestion... have ICANN purchase some type of quality conferencing software for the at-large so that participants from around the globe can readily join in and raise their virtual hands to be recognized by a moderator, view presentations, hear speakers, and chat simultaneously.  
 
How many millions will ICANN spend next year?  Why not spend a few dollars on at-large communication/participation tools?  That will have a far greater value and impact than sending ICANN staff around the planet to set up ALAC outreach booths.

		
---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
 Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web