Working Group E Report – Awareness and Outreach

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.

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 Asia Pacific TLD association and the Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR) in Europe (refer to Section 5.1).
3.3.3	Coordinate awareness and outreach activities with at large membership drive and at large board member 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 and Africa also hold workshops, but less often.  Cross-fertilization 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 along with APNIC 2000.  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.

5.2	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 North America.  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 “Awareness and Outreach” was not one that generated high interest.
There was good participation in the 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 “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 NC 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 below.

(We should provide as much detail as possible: list of participants by region, in-person meetings held, web site URL, comment periods, summary of comments received, etc.  Of particular importance is the comment period for the final report.)