|
DNSO Working Group E Report - Global Awareness and Outreach
|
4 July 2000
The charter of DNSO Working Group E was to develop a
recommendation in response to specific questions raised
in regard to three categories of issues: (1) generic
issues, (2) General Assembly specific issues and (3)
constituency specific issues. In each of the three
categories, questions were organized into three
subcategories: (1) target audience, (2) awareness and (3)
outreach.
Because there is considerable overlap between the issues
and questions raised in the three major categories, the
recommendations in this report are combined into one set
of recommendations for all three categories under the
three subcategory headings (target audience, awareness
and outreach). Under each of the subcategories, the
specific questions are listed first followed by working
group conclusions and finally working group
recommendations. Not all questions were directly answered
in Working Group E's efforts, but it is believed that the
conclusions and recommendations following the questions
in each section provide a reasonable framework for moving
forward.
In preparing the recommendations the following two
assumptions were made:
· Significant outreach should occur before the first
at-large elections. To make this happen, implementation
of outreach activities needs to happen as soon as
possible after the ICANN meetings in Japan in July 2000.
· Funding for outreach may be limited. If this is true,
cost-effective methods should be a high priority.
After the three sections of the report written in
response to the charter questions, three additional
sections follow. Section 4 contains implementation
recommendations. Section 5 summarizes awareness and
outreach activities already underway. And Section 6
discusses the level of consensus achieved in Working
Group E.
1. Target Audience
1.1 Questions
1.1.1 Who are we looking for, professional and/or
netizen? Who do we not want? Who are we addressing,
potential General Assembly member or wider Internet
community?
1.1.2 Why should one join? What benefits will members
receive? What is lost if one does not join?
1.1.3 Who can be a member? Is there a potential members
list?
1.2 Working Group Conclusions
1.2.1 Any person or organization that is interested in
Internet issues under ICANN's realm of responsibility
should be encouraged to participate.
1.2.2 Membership benefits include the ability to
participate in the ICANN decision-making process, the
right to vote for ICANN board of directors candidates,
the opportunity to be a part of working groups or
committees, the chance to be included on discussion
lists, etc.
1.2.3 Membership qualifications vary with the ICANN
organizational element involved. ICANN At Large
membership is open to anyone who is interested in and
willing to devote time to study important issues
concerning the Internet's Domain Name System. Membership
qualifications in supporting organizations are determined
by each supporting organization. Membership
qualifications in supporting organization constituencies
are determined by the respective constituencies.
1.3 Working Group Recommendations
1.3.1 People who are currently impacted by ICANN
activities should be targeted first. It is very difficult
to motivate participation by those who do not currently
have any real need. It will be more effective to first
focus on those who already have a need and then later
target those who may be affected in the future.
1.3.2 Geographical and cultural diversity should be
strongly emphasized.
1.3.3 One audience that should always be targeted is that
of newcomers (e.g., IETF Newcomer Orientation). In
particular, newcomer orientation sessions should be
offered at all ICANN public meetings.
1.3.4 Target audience priorities:
1.3.4.1 Priority # 1: ICANN at-large members. (It is
assumed that ICANN at-large members would be amenable to
receive and use information because of the upcoming ICANN
at-large director elections.)
1.3.4.2 Priority # 2: Potential ICANN at-large members.
1.3.4.3 Priority # 3: Users of the ICANN web site.
1.3.4.4 Priority # 4: Under-represented regions of the
world (based on at-large membership demographics).
Special emphasis should be placed on regions where ICANN
involvement is minimal such as Central and South Asia,
the Middle East and certain parts of Africa.
1.3.4.5 Other priorities should be added that are less
time sensitive and as funds allow.
1.3.5 Incentives may be needed to encourage ongoing
involvement. For example, being able to vote once a year
may not be enough motivation for many people so other
reasons for involvement may need to be established (e.g.,
participation in polls, newsletter, etc.). A pilot study
and/or investigation of existing research related to this
area might be useful in determining what types of
incentives would be effective.
1.3.5.1 A further incentive that is needed is the sense by
International participants that ongoing involvement has an impact,
particularly as a participant in the timeconsuming DNSO working
group process. The working groups handle the review and debate
on substantive policy making matters within the DNSO. The sense
based on recent DNSO Names Council actions is that the Working
Working Groups may be ignored at whim. This attitude is not
conducive to the type of grassroots and international involvment
being sought within the working group process.
2. Awareness
2.1 Questions
2.1.1 What is the message? What information do we want to
be known? What messages are sent to audience?
2.1.2 What publication media shall we use?
2.1.3 What public relations activities are needed?
2.1.4 Is face-to-face presentation necessary in addition
to contact through the Internet?
2.1.5 How do we measure progress in awareness?
2.1.6 What are geographic objectives?
2.1.7 Is there a critical mass goal?
2.2 Working Group Conclusions
2.2.1 The goal should be to create materials that address
particular needs of those who are prepared to receive and
use the information. Different materials should be
developed for different audiences.
2.2.2 Simplicity will facilitate the widest possible
distribution across the very diverse population to be
reached. Simplicity will make it easier to translate
materials into different languages as well as to
distribute them via various means of communication.
Simplicity will also facilitate the processes of
distributing information quickly and making it easily
understood and absorbed.
2.2.3 Customization of information material to local
community needs will improve the effectiveness of
outreach. Customization can include translation into
native languages, integration of information into
familiar settings (e.g., web pages, local newsletters,
etc.), etc.
2.2.4 Central control of the content of information
materials will reduce the likelihood of intended messages
being distorted as they are distributed to different
audiences and via different modes of communication.
2.2.5 Outreach materials will be ignored if the content
is not reliable and accurate.
2.3 Working Group Recommendations
2.3.1 Continuation of awareness activities already
underway should be encouraged (see Section 5).
2.3.2 There should be good educational programs at every
ICANN meeting, including programs offered in the local
language. These could be patterned after the Berkman
Center workshops and/or the Joint ccTLD Workshops
referred to in Section 5.1.1.
2.3.3 Regional workshops including local language-based
workshops should be encouraged.
2.3.4 Cross-fertilization of workshops including
knowledge and technology transfer should be encouraged.
Personnel exchange is one of the most effective ways to
do this. Also, the simple task of publishing meeting
schedules to broader audiences could be helpful in this
regard.
2.3.5 The possibility of enhancing Web-casting of ICANN
Meetings and workshops to encourage increased
participation should be investigated.
2.3.6 Collaboration with some publishing houses to
publish ICANN activities should be explored.
2.3.7 Information materials should be designed with
specific target audiences in mind.
2.3.8 Information materials should be designed as simply
as possible.
2.3.9 Information material should be customized to local
community needs (e.g., translated into native languages,
integrated into familiar settings, etc.).
2.3.10 Content of information materials should be
centrally controlled.
2.3.11 A process should be put into place to ensure that
information materials are kept up-to-date.
2.3.12 If information is provided via a website, it
should be provided in a layered format so that recipients
can select to view the content that is meaningful to
them. For example, web-based information could have links
for domain name holders, for trademark holders, for users
of e-commerce, for ISPs, for members of standards
organizations, etc.
2.3.13 Information content for at-large members (Priority
# 1 above) should include: Possible content: 1. Status of
election process for five directors; 2. Information about
the nomination process; 3. Information about nominees; 4.
Election details.
2.3.14 Content for potential at-large members should
include: 1. What is ICANN? 2. How might ICANN impact the
Internet community? 3. What is the value of individual
participation in ICANN? 4. What opportunities for
individual participation are scheduled in the near term?
(At large elections, working groups, ICANN meetings,
etc.).
3. Outreach
3.1 Questions
3.1.1 What does it require to become a member?
3.1.2 How do we make it easy to become a member? How do
we simplify the application process?
3.1.3 How do we attract the interest of potential
members? How do we make membership attractive?
3.1.4 What would potential members want?
3.1.5 What verification do we want for members?
3.1.6 What obligations do members have?
3.1.7 How do we communicate, advertise? Direct contacts?
3.1.8 How do we leverage the cooperation of other
organizations? Which organizations?
3.1.9 How do we handle multilingual issues?
3.1.10 What additional efforts do we need for developing
countries?
3.2 Working Group Conclusions
3.2.1 Outreach activities are an essential need with
regard to the ICANN at-large membership activities.
Consequently, it is very important that any efforts
resulting from Working Group E recommendations are
coordinated with those related to at-large membership and
the associated at-large director elections.
3.2.2 Using existing channels within ICANN to reach the
community is the most expedient way to distribute
information and thereby encourage involvement. ICANN
channels include: IP registries, name registries, name
registrars, supporting organizations (ASO, DNSO, PSO),
supporting organization constituencies, etc. Each of
these channels represents various parts of the Internet
community and each of them (to varying degrees) have
existing ways to communicate with their customers. Using
these channels to reach out to the community provides the
fastest access to community members, is the most
cost-efficient and most readily lends itself to local
customization of the information. Using existing channels
also has a greater probability of capturing the people
who have a need to be involved with ICANN.
3.2.3 Efforts should be made to distribute information
via previously scheduled Internet events such as
conferences, workshops, seminars, etc. Such events
provide additional channels to reach the community.
3.2.4 Information should be distributed in alternative
formats to accommodate varying technical requirements.
Information should always be available in text format for
those who have low bandwidth connections.
3.2.5 Distribution methods and channels should be
documented to facilitate evaluation of effectiveness.
Quantitative data should be obtained and analyzed.
3.3 Working Group Recommendations
3.3.1 Encourage continuation of outreach activities
already underway (see Section 5).
3.3.2 Encourage organizations in all parts of the world
to implement outreach programs similar to those
implemented by the regional Top Level Domain organizations;
the African Top Level Domain Association(AFTLD), the Asia
Pacific TLD Forum(APTLD), the Council of European National
Top Level Registries(CENTR), and Latin America and Caribbean
Top Level Domain Association(LACTLD) (refer to Section 5.1).
3.3.3 Coordinate awareness and outreach activities with
at-large membership drive and at-large board director
elections.
3.3.4 Distribute information via existing ICANN channels
on web sites, via email, etc.
3.3.5 Reach out to the community through Internet related
conferences, workshops, seminars, etc.
3.3.6 Enlist the cooperation of the owners of the
channels used with the understanding that content needs
to remain consistent.
3.3.7 Ensure that electronic information is available in
alternative formats to accommodate varying technical
requirements. Text format should always be an option.
3.3.8 Consider the possibility of establishing regional
ICANN offices. These could be based in the geographical
regions and/or cultural/language regions. One way to
facilitate this would be to enlist the cooperation of
existing regional organizations such as regional ccTLD
group secretariats, registrars, ISPs, and RIRs.
3.3.9 Consider the possibility of providing special
personnel and/or funding support to increase outreach
efforts in geographical and/or cultural regions where
knowledge of ICANN activities is not prevalent (e.g.,
Central and South Asia, Middle East, and some parts of
Africa).
3.3.10 Document outreach efforts and evaluate their
effectiveness so that the process can be improved going
forward.
4. Implementation Recommendations
It is recommended that a team of volunteers be formed to
work with ICANN in implementing Working Group E
recommendations. This team could be a new DNSO working
group, a continuation of Working Group E or simply an
implementation team. Because working groups are intended
to develop consensus positions, it seems to make sense
that this be an implementation team. Characteristics of
the team should be geographically and culturally diverse,
should include representatives from Working Group E and
should have multilingual skills if possible.
Team responsibilities could include:
1. Development and implementation of a short-term
outreach and awareness plan in support of the at large
membership drive and at large director elections
2. Development of a detailed implementation plan
3. Development of information content
4. Identification of and coordination with distribution
channels
5. Development of procedures for ensuring content
consistency
6. Development of guidelines for content customization
7. Solicitation of volunteers for translation services
8. Solicitation of volunteers for other needed services
such as web-site development expertise, etc.
9. Development of quality control guidelines.
5. Awareness and Outreach Activities Already Underway
In terms of awareness levels, ICANN members can be
grouped into two broad categories: those who participate
in ICANN meetings and those who do not. The latter group
is typically unable to participate in meetings because of
geographical location and financial limitations. At the
same time, it is very important that all ICANN members
stay informed about current ICANN developments. Those who
participate in meetings tend to be extremely well
informed but they only represent a very small sample of
the Internet community even when web-casting participants
are included. Therefore it is critical to increase
awareness in other ways such as making written materials
available through various media.
To expand awareness levels beyond what is possible in
ICANN meetings, several awareness and outreach efforts
have been organized around the world. These include
workshops and seminars and other efforts such as the at
large membership drive. Some of these are described
below.
5.1 Workshops and Seminars
5.1.1 Berkman Center Workshops
The Berkman Center at Harvard University held several
ICANN related workshops in 1998 and 1999. It is expected
that the Berkman Center will hold one workshop per year.
Similar efforts by other organizations should be
encouraged, especially outside of North America. The
Berkman Center has web-cast all ICANN meetings in the
past, not only providing the capability for remote
participation in ICANN meetings but also providing audio
and text archives of those meetings.
5.1.2 ccTLD Joint Workshops
The ccTLD constituency has sponsored Joint TLD Workshops
starting from June 1999. The workshops have been
self-supported with volunteer efforts. With better
funding and staffing, these workshops could be enhanced
and expanded.
5.1.3 Regional ccTLD Workshops
The Asia Pacific TLD organization (APTLD) and the Council
of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR)
hold workshops several times a year. They cover various
topics. Other regions such as Latin America(LACTLD) and
Africa(AFTLD) also hold workshops, but less often.
Cross-fertilizaiton among these workshop activities might
be useful.
5.1.4 APTLD Internet Seminar Tour
The APTLD in cooperation with the Asia Pacific Internet
Association (APIA) established an Internet Seminar Tour
in Asia in 1999, visiting five countries to give seminars
on Internet governance and Y2K. Some of these countries
formed committees and groups to work on Internet
governance issues and to participate in ICANN activities.
Three African countries were also visited in late 1999.
To date in 2000, the seminars have been held in two
additional countries and plans are in place to hold them
in six more countries together with APNIC. The major
issue being addressed in 2000 is ICANN participation
through the at-large membership and other forums.
The APTLD and the volunteers who serve as speakers have
funded the seminar tour. The APTLD has paid speakers'
airfare and the speakers donate their time. Local
arrangements are handled by the hosting country
organization. The APTLD set a goal to reach as many
countries as possible in Asia. Education about ICANN
activities could be expanded considerably if
organizations in other parts of the world followed this
same model.
5.1.5 Harvard Internet Infrastructure Program
Harvard Internet Infrastructure Program (HIIP) holds
workshop once or twice a year on the Internet and Society
as well as on other topics.
5.1.6 Others
Many countries offers seminars and workshops on the
Internet governance and related subjects lately. They
include Germany, Japan, and Korea among others.
5.2 ICANN At Large Membership Drive
As stated on its website, "ICANN's goal is to enlist
members of the Internet community in its consensus-based
processes and supporting organizations, committees and
working groups, including the At Large Membership. By
joining the At Large Membership, [one] become[s] a part
of ICANN's "bottom up" approach to making policy
concerning Internet Names and Addresses."
To achieve this goal as related to the At Large
Membership, ICANN initially formed a Membership Advisory
Committee (MAC). After the completion of the MAC's work,
a Membership Implementation Task Force was formed that
led to the current At Large Membership Drive.
There are currently over 15,000 at large members, and
ICANN expects to have between 20,000 and 30,000 when it
closes the membership drive at the end of July 2000. A
very high percentage of these members are from the
developed countries, in particular from USA and Germany.
To achieve the goal of having good geographical diversity
as well as cultural diversity, particular efforts are
needed among developing and emerging countries as well as
non-English speaking countries. Notable efforts have
occurred in Asia where the membership drive has been a
topic of focus in regional meetings being held there (see
Section 5.1 above). Similar efforts are needed in other
parts of the world including Central and South Asia,
Latin America, Africa and Middle East.
6. Level of Consensus Reached
It is not possible to conclude that this report is based
on the consensus of all participants of Working Group E.
Nor would it be possible to objectively demonstrate that
the recommendations in the report represent consensus
positions of the Internet community as a whole. There are
several reasons for this:
- The number of participants in Working Group E was
relatively small.
- The success of getting Working Group E members to
respond to calls for review of portions of the report was
very unsatisfactory.
- The topic of "Global Awareness and Outreach" was not one
that generated high interest.
There was good participation in the Los Angeles and Cairo
Working Group E meeting and various members volunteered to
assist in working on the finalization of the report. But
very few of the volunteers were responsive after that
meeting.
A case can be made that the topic of "Global Awareness and
Outreach" is not well suited for a consensus-building
approach. It seems reasonable to assume that a large
majority of the community supports the need to reach out
to as many people and organizations as possible to make
them aware of ICANN activities and the importance of
their participation.
In the absence of a clear definition of consensus,
Working Group E recommends to the DNSO Names Council that
it review the report and determine if there is consensus
support among the Names Council members. If so, the report
could then be given to the ICANN board for its consideration.
A summary of Working Group activities including a list of
participants listed by region is provided in Appendix.
Appendix 1: Summary of DNSO WG-E Activities
1999.06 WG-E Formation
1999.08 WG-E Charter Statement
1999.08 Santiago Meeting
1999.10 Draft Overview Report
1999.11 Los Angeles Meeting
2000.02 Final Overview Report
2000.03 Cairo Meeting
2000.06 Draft Final Report for Public Comment
(Edited by Chuck Gomes and Kilnam Chon)
2000.07 Final Report to DNSO (expected)
All public comments and email exchanges are archived at
www.dnso.org.
Appendix 2: WG-E Member Distribution
There are 40 members from the following regions:
Africa 3
Asia-Pacific 11
Europe 7
Latin America 2
North America 17
Appendix 3: Document Translation
Many important documents of ICANN should be translated to
popular languages. It is recommended to trnaslate all
popular languages which are spoken by 4% of the world
population with ICANN coordination with possible funding.
The languages include Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindu,
Russian, and Spanish.
Other popular languages such as the ones spoken by 1% of
the world population may also be coordinated by ICANN on
the translation.