Re: [ALSC-Forum] What users will (and won't) do.

[Frank-Thomas Merkel]

On 28 Jul 2001, at 22:51, Thomas Roessler wrote:
 
> With respect to some of the questions from discussion paper #1, the
> following question may be instructive to investigate: Why, in the
> first place, should anyone participate in a mailing list, online
> discussion forum, e-democracy project?  Why should anyone spend time
> on diving into complex topics (such as ICANN)?
> 
> That is: What kinds of incentives do people have for participation?
> And what will keep them away?
> Of course, the simplest incentive (and, at the same time, one of the
> most powerful ones) is - power.

Hello to all in this forum. I'd like to object to this because I think the 
"simplest" incentive is survival. Keep the people fed and secure and 
they won't ask for participation. Worked for the Romans two 
milleniae ago and will work today.

> Let people feel that they are heared
> and have the opportunity to move something, and they'll try to
> contribute.  Give them the feeling that they don't matter because the
> deal has already been fixed behind closed doors, and they'll turn
> away.  The common perception that the ICANN processes are actually
> closed and that public participation is mostly a fig leaf will thus
> frustrate possible participants, and discourage participation and
> self-organizing efforts.

This is what has to be done with us (from a government point of 
view) who look a little bit further.
 
> Don't frustrate those who try to participate and contribute. The best
> outreach program is to take users' concerns and input seriously.  This
> implies that users must be informed in a timely fashion, and not one
> week before the yearly meeting.  At least make sure people can read
> the papers you publish in the time you leave.
 
Well, logic clearly dictates... but I have seen logic bow to 
'Dilbertism' too many times. 
 
> Another important incentive are actual or perceived attacks onto
> actual or perceived assets.

It's not just "another" incentive. Only, if someone threatens to take 
something from you, you'll realize what you have and what you'll 
eventually lose. This is the real incentive that will people make fight.

> In the absence of such incentives, individual users in general won't
> contribute to individual questions of the ICANN process (or, for that
> matter, any political process).  This does, however, not mean that
> such questions don't influence individuals' lifes and activities, and
> it also does not mean that they shouldn't have a voice in detail
> decisions.

At work, I've got a co-worker (female, about fifty years) who once 
(while I exaggeratedly tried to explain something) just powered 
down the PC and said to me "Well, and what will your beloved little 
internet do for you now?"
This may work today. However, with Big Business and 
Governments trying to control the internet, detail decisions mustn't 
be left to them.
 
> In fact, we have arrived at the classical argument in favor of 
> representative democracies: Don't expect direct user (or citizen)
> input on arcane topics which don't bear any incentive for users to
> deal with them. 

We haven't arrived at this "classical" argument in favor of
 representative democracies. Any democracy means that you 
can "fire" the government without people hanging from lampposts. 
(I'm a strict follower of K. Popper on this one).

> Input on such topics will and must be provided by
> "experts".  ICANN structure should make sure that these experts are
> determined in a way which makes them accountable to end users, so
> these experts have an incentive to act in the users' best interests.

As the internet is a "techie thing" I wholly agree with you on this 
one.
 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
 
Best,
Frank Merkel						<no homepage, sorry.>