[alac] [fwd] [alac-forum] (from: GendronM@mail.ccsu.edu)
- To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [alac] [fwd] [alac-forum] (from: GendronM@mail.ccsu.edu)
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:35:13 +0100
Michael's questions are worth thinking about, and they deserve a
response from committee members. Incidentally, the fact that they
end up on the forum archive and don't kick off public discussion
demonstrates that the forum is an entirely unsuitable tool for any
kind of serious discussion.
Time for an open discussion list?
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
----- Forwarded message from "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <GendronM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <GendronM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 12:07:45 -0500
I recently attended Rome meeting - sorry to say. I had to leave
Wednesday morning due to a commitment in the U.S. I have given
considerable thought to how the At Large should organize itself, and how
it should attract members.
Individuals (at least in the societies I am directly familiar with)
largely depend on governments to represent them in matters which are: 1)
either not of direct concern to them or 2) which they do not fully grasp
(e.g., like internet technical issues). They sometimes become members of
groups that represent them (e.g. lobbing groups, etc.) to the
government. The Internet is a new phenomenon that individuals do not
understand and has historically been run by very technical people,
government, or those with large commercial interests. The trick for At
Large is to develop an appeal to individuals so they have an incentive
to get involved. Most people probably do not care about new TLDs, and
IDNs, and feel like intellectual property issues will be handled in the
courts. I have the following question for ALAC:
1) Does At Large want to have individual members, or organizations
that represent individuals, or both? This is crucial. It will drive the
type of organization we want to become.
2) How can At Large have the greatest policy impact on ICANN
related issues? With Individual Members? Organizational Members?
3) How do we get people interested in policy issues? They are
usually only of concern to those that have a direct stake in them.
4) How do we educate the populous about the issues and motivate
them to be involved?
5) How do we convince organizations (which represent individually)
to invest their scare resources in ICANN activities? How do we motivate
6) Do we want to represent all individual internet users (probably
impossible) , "power users," users that are part of organizations the
represent individuals (a very select group I assume), or just technical
users who have no representation somewhere else?
Many issues and question come of out answering the questions above. I
offer to help work toward these answers but unless we answer these
fundamental questions, I am not sure how we can proceed and hope to be
Dr Michael Gendron
Michael Gendron, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of MIS
Central Connecticut State University
----- End forwarded message -----