Re: [wg-e] WG E: Part 4 Awareness

[Kilnam Chon <chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr>]

bill and ben and all,

we need both and much more; awareness for icann participants and outreach for 
non-participants if i could simplify.  the real issue is that coordination
on fund raising.  how much fund to the awareness on the hot issues at icann,
and how much fund to the outreach.

for example on the next icann meeting in africa in march 2000.  how do we
coordinate the outreach and awareness meetings if we could find funding.
(this would be true to other meetings, too.)
we would like to have half-day meeting on membership drive and new gtld, 
possibly on sunday afternoon.  africa would also like to organize two-day
conference/workshop for african, possibly on saturday-sunday.  here, we would
have contention on time, fund, and/or human resource.

bill,
	hope you could lead the funding part so that we could realize much
	of our proposals to be made next year.

chon

On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 12:09:30PM -0800, Bill Washburn wrote:
> Dear friends--
> 	I hope not to say things out of turn.  I want to put out a question
> on a different level for possible consideration respecting workshops and
> global awareness.  We are helping the Internet community expand and evolve
> beyond its technological and sociological genetic beginnings in "Western
> culture of research, education, and commerce" so to speak.  I would assert
> that at least some of our workshop  work ought to entail establishing a much
> better awareness of how things are done and not  done in other parts of the
> world.  I am not so comfortable with how chauvinistic we tend to be about
> the supremacy of U.S. norms and manners in the Internet arena.  Afterall,
> isn't that fundamental and implicit in the meaning of outreach and global
> awareness.
> 	Just an opinion from the peanut gallery.  cheers, bill
> 
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:edelman@law.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 5:04 PM
> To: Kilnam Chon; wg-e@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-e] WG E: Part 4 Awareness
> 
> 
> Kilnam Chon asked:
> 
> > 1. do you have any recommendation what "workshop" or seminars we would
> >    have next march when we have icann meeting in africa?
> >
> > 2. what about next july when we have icann meeting in japan?
> >
> > 3. are these regionally coordinated workshops appropriate?  or shall we
> >    have globally coordinated workshop instead?
> 
> First of all, I just want to say that I think these are exactly the right
> three questions to ask in thinking more about the workshops.  I don't
> pretend to have all the answers... but I do think these questions will lead
> us there.
> 
> The answer to 1, I imagine, follows from the issues to be considered in the
> March meeting tentatively to be held in Africa.  (Though note that
> <http://www.icann.org/general/meeting-spec.htm> says "The ICANN Board has
> indicated a strong preference to hold the meetings in Africa, but proposals
> will be accepted from any part of the world.")  I imagine issues under
> consideration will be membership and new gTLDs, so I'd suggest that
> workshops focus on those two topics.  Perhaps half a day on each?  They're
> both extremely difficult issues, but three to four hours is a long time --
> enough for two full panels on each topic, should you be so inclined, say
> with one panel full of "outside experts" (representatives of membership
> organizations for membership; technical people, economists, lawyers with
> relevant experience in deregulation, etc. talking about new gTLDs) and with
> another panel consisting of selected representative stakeholders.  (Although
> there are significant risks and challenges in a stakeholder panel...
> requires careful planning.)
> 
> Re 2, I'm not sure what the issues will be by the summer, but my instinct is
> that many of the issues under consideration in March may remain in July.
> The At-Large Membership will be in key formative stages -- at the moment I
> don't recall the precise timetable, and I failed to find it in a quick
> browse through ICANN's site and will surely continue to merit attention from
> the Board.  And whatever the status of new gTLDS -- a few added, still being
> discussed, etc. -- I imagine the Board will want to hear further input from
> stakeholders about their perspective on the new gTLDs.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure about the third question.  There are huge benefits to
> having local organizers coordinate the workshops -- that much more
> opportunity for local hosts to get involved, better use of local experts for
> increased representativeness not to mention lower costs, etc.  But, at the
> same time, I'd be hesitant to force organizing a workshop on any entity not
> already well-versed in the ICANN process.  Organizing our workshop last
> month was a trying process even with the advantages of significant
> ICANN-related experience and expertise on staff.  It would have been far
> harder -- impossible, I suspect! -- had Diane and I and others not already
> been deeply involved with the issues ICANN considers.  So I certainly think
> this is a key point of concern, and it's something that I'll continue to
> think about, but as yet I don't feel like I have a set position one way or
> the other... I still see strong arguments on both sides.  I do think,
> however, that it's important that some single entity come forward to take on
> the challenge -- else, diffuse responsibility prevents any single group from
> feeling the pressure to make the workshop happen, I worry that quality and
> dedication might suffer as a result of such diffusion of responsibility.
> What do others think?
> 
> 
> Ben