Re: [atlarge-discuss] web page

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 12:43 -0400 2002/10/21, Hans Klein wrote:
>Bret,
>
>We have been making reasonably good progress on the Panel.  Most people 
>have been making fairly constructive comments, and a number of people are 
>not objecting.  Jamie is clearly upset, but he seems to be alone in this, 
>and I keep trying to address his substantive concerns.

Actually, Jamie is not the only one concerned. 

Amongst other things, I was downright *horrified* to discover that we have now been categorized as "ICANN members" according to our own site!

I also wasn't entirely thrilled to see under "Regions" that I'm listed as the contact person for Quebec rather than the French-language contact person for Canada (there are French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, too) but I'm not sure exactly when that was done.

>That leaves the draft bylaws and the draft mission statement.  How do 
>people on this list feel about posting those documents?

The way this material is presented merely shows how disorganized and unprofessional we really are. 

In my capacity as member of WG-Outreach, I feel strongly that **nothing** should go up on the Web site until it has been checked carefully for embarrassing errors by at least two people other than the writer and webmaster. I am sorely tempted to say "Take everything down and put up an 'in construction' notice until we can approve a policy for handling Web documents rationally.

I also propose that the WG-Web be asked immediately to develop a site plan, a procedure for vetting material to be posted, and a recommendation on what types of material require policy approval before being added to the site.


At 08:23 AM 10/21/2002 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
>>Why don't we keep it simple? I see no reason to present anything even
>>remotely controversial on the homepage. 

I would go even further myself. 

Normally the "welcome" page should give a good (although relatively brief) account of what the organization is and does, why it exists, who is involved, etc, and if one is fortunate, a decent site map or index so people can easily see what type of information is located where. 

Our site doesn't do this, and we're as yet incapable of saying definitively what this organization will be and what it will do. Thus, anything we say to encourage new registrations is "misleading advertising" to begin with. That makes me very uncomfortable.

Therefore, when Bret writes:
>>Of the four headline boxes, I would recommend that 1 and 4 present >>information like:
>>
>>(1) Headline: What is ICANNAtLarge.org?
>>
>>(4) Headline: Join and Participate in ICANNatLarge.org.
>>
>>Use (2) and (3) to highlight current developments. (2) might be a link to >>a press release about Shanghai. (3) might be a link to the names and >>countries of residence of the elected panel members.

My reaction is that we can't say anything accurate and meaningful under (1) except that 
- We are a group of people who want representation for Internet users to be included in ICANN and any other bodies making decisions about the Internet.
- Most of us were members of ICANN's own At Large which was meant to provide that representation, but ICANN abolished it so we are trying to construct an  independent organization to speak in some fashion for all Internet users.

and under (4) that
- There are about 1000 people from around the world registered, of whom about two dozen are deeply involved, and less than two hundred voted last time.
- Things have been moving very slowly and will continue to do so until we have a larger number of members willing to work through the difficult start-up phase with us, and we'd dearly love members with experience of working co-operatively within organizations or committees as well as those with an understanding of the fine points of DNS management.
- If you want to be part of something that might become a collective voice for the Internet user community and want to help make that happen, we'd love to have you but we can't tell you what membership actually means yet.

I think (2) is no problem -- just post notices of upcoming events related to Internet governance, in the original wording from the various organizations, so people can see which bodies are involved in the issues of concern -- but I'm not convinced it should be the second link on the page. And, by the way, I *really* don't think we're in any position to issue press releases about anything yet, even if we had decided that somebody was authorized to write them... which we haven't.

Item (3) is a problem, I think. What's the point of just listing the Panel, whom most people will know nothing about? It would make more sense to post a short biography for each of them if you are hoping to do is make them the focus as some kind of Board of Directors (which they're not), or a statement of what they each want this organization to be (if we want to show everyone that we haven't got our act together yet), or to encourage people to contact them for information about the organization-to-be (if they're prepared to answer the individual enquiries) or...

>>P.S. I'm not going to post anything absent instruction from someone
>>official. Who might that person be? The entire panel or the head of the >>web site working group?

At this point, certainly anything going up should have the full approval of the Panel -- e.g., a resolution accepting the page as correct and accurate and desirable to publish, not just a "put up whatever you like" authorization which means our site is neither good PR nor an accurate representation of the reality. 

The reason for having a WG-Web was to have several members involved in planning what should be on the site and how it should be organized. They do not report to the Acting Interim Chair but to the membership, and those plans should be open to discussion and policies made on how the site will be handled. Amongst other things, the idea was to prevent the unilateralism and wrangling we've already had about the Web site, and to make sure that what is presented on the site represents our best thinking on the issues we're trying to address. So far, it certainly doesn't.

We really, really need to rethink how we handle our Web presence, which is THE most important thing we can do after defining our mission and bylaws.
There is no particular rationale for putting four "Headlines" links on the page and then seeking to justify them by the selection of material, regardless of who does the justifying, as in the following from Hans:

>> >> The front page has four "Headlines" links.
>> >> I suggest those headlines be:
>> >>   1. "At Large Forum in Shanghai" (links to our announcement)
>> >>   2. "Recent Writings About ICANNatlarge.org" with links to:
>> >>        Bruce Young's http://www.circleid.com/articles/2542.asp
>> >>         (possibly an upcoming Cyber-Federalist on ICANNatlarge.org)
>> >>         other relevant articles/documents? (Jefsey? Richard?)
>> >>   3. "Draft Mission Statement"
>> >>   4. "Draft By-laws"
>> >>    A note on the draft bylaws and mission statement.  In order to make
>> >> clear that they are not complete, these could link to the Email postings on the Panel list archives.  I think that conveys their still-tentative status.
>> >>
>> >> At that point, I believe we present a credible face to the public.  We
>> >> can be proud of what we have accomplished.

I think that whole thing betrays a serious misunderstanding of the realities. The "At Large Forum" is misleading since nobody is authorized to speak on behalf of this group. Bruce's article, nice as it is, is also one man's opinion, not the group's, and gives a false impression that it somehow represents us. 

The drafts of the mission statement and bylaws have no validity, either, and linking to the Panel discussion once again gives the impression that the Panel is a Board of Directors which will be setting policy for this organization, rather than an Interim Panel whose suggestions are no more valid than those of any other member. The texts themselves only emphasize that we don't know what the heck we're doing yet.

>> >> Again, our deadline is tonight.  We have to reach people before they
>> >> depart for Shanghai!

Hans, I'm sorry but imposing an invented deadline is no excuse for acting unilaterally as if on behalf of this group. 

The Web site is not for the purpose of making it look as if individuals on the Panel have some kind of authority to speak on behalf of the group at one meeting or another. It *is* for the purpose of publishing the group's statement(s) of purpose and encouraging such Internet users as happen to land on the site to take an interest in what we're doing. 

If we want to achieve something with this group, we need a much better process than "Bret, put something on the site" from you or any other Panel member. We need to make it clear that the webmaster works for the group, not just for the Panel or its Acting Interim Chair, and decide what will best serve the interests of the group in terms of process as well as content.

My two cents,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de