Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, July 10, 2014 06:44 -0700 Lucy Lynch
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Dan York wrote:
> 
>> I find myself agreeing with Avri a bit here that I'm not
>> entirely clear  on what the issue is...
> 
> Dan -
> 
> For me this is about inclusion by default (the push of email
> to each user with the opening for response in your own time)
> vs the need to constantly check in on a coversation (the pull
> of on line forums with the requirement to fit yourself into
> the correct thread). The flow of a list works better for me
> and it's easy enough to state norms for participstion when the
> conversation drifts. I'd prefer to opt for tacit inclusion -
> you lose folks with every gate you put in the path.

Lucy (and Dan),

I think there are two entirely separate issues here and that the
combination has been one of the sources of confusion.

First, on which I agree with you, is the inherent difference
between mailing lists and web-based forums, even when the latter
are supplemented by notifications of when things change.  Part
of it is a matter of convenience, part is that the difference
biases the profiles of the participants.    IIR, a colleague who
is now a senior ICANN staff member once described similar
situations as the web forums selecting for greater participation
by those who had too much time on their hands than for those who
were busy and productive about other things.  

But not all of the community, even the IETT community, agrees
with us.  If you were to go back and review the IETF threads
about DMARC a while back, you would definitely see signs of an
attitude that can, I think, be summarized as "mailing lists are
an outdated way of communication and, if anti-spam measures make
mailing lists less effective or less usable, that is a cheap
price to pay".   From that perspective, sticking with mailing
lists may bias the discussion toward those of us who are
clinging to obsolete technologies.

The other, IMO completely unrelated, issues is the one that
Andrew, Eliot, and others have been discussing and analyzing.
Intentionally or not, this isn't just a move to the web.  It is
a move that requires those who want to continue to agree to a
long series of principles and requirements.  Some are pretty
typical and pretty harmless -- not much different, IPR rules
aside, from the conditions for using the IETF's web sites.
Others appear less benign.  I tend to summarize them as
requiring agreement that ICANN's best interests are ultimately
more important than those of the Internet and that ICANN staff
can control and/or censor conversations to support those
interests or other ICANN norms.  Andrew's analysis (and various
followups) are better and more precise.

Nothing would prevent ICANN from alleviating those concerns by
posting a notice that said something like "in spite of the
normal rules for our forums, while we expect courtesy, honesty,
etc., you don't need to agree to support ICANN's bylaws and
objectives to participate here".  Perhaps ICANN leadership
doesn't know, but there are (or were) fairly senior ICANN people
on this list (and, I gather, in other places where similar
discussions are occurring) so, unless they all dropped off at a
convenient moment or are deliberately hiding the discussion and
reactions from their leadership/management, each day that goes
by without such a correction reinforces the view that it is
intentional and that, for some people, calls into question the
whole subject of whether the "IANA transition" process can
succeed if ICANN is acting as steward or manager in any way.

    john