Hi Hadia, Thank you for your cogent analysis by taking the original research and applying it for relevance to the At-Large community. I benefit from your analysis. It definitely adds to the conversation originally triggered by Joanna. I concur with you about the need to promote and encourage research within At-Large, but I think it might be wise to broaden the scope to include ICANN, At-Large & Global End Users. The idea of encouraging research may align with some of Evan’s ideas, although the pragmatic hurdle of funding research cannot be avoided. In addition to the need for more academic research, I believe Maureen’s contribution yesterday highlights an important dimension of the environment in which At-Large exists. Specifically, Maureen’s quote which follows caught my attention … “You can't compare the work that is done by volunteers in the ALAC and the GAC who don't come to the ICANN table with the technical knowledge and expertise of the SO community, so that AC end-user interests are dismissed as insignificant.” Hadia,I think the role you identify at the end of your analysis which addresses Quiet Politics aligns with Maureen’s statement. My experience with technology tells me this is a non-trivial and never-ending task. However, At-Large can be successful in this task with support from staff plus constant effort by ALSs & individual members. The need for appropriate funding, again, cannot be avoided. I finish with a question to the At-Large community, which was triggered from your statement … “Promoting and ensuring effective accountability mechanisms are in place”. I’m not familiar with the term “accountability mechanisms”. Maybe someone with more governance experience and knowledge of At-Large history can share their ideas and/or views of past conversations on the topic of accountability mechanisms within ICANN & At-Large. Accountability mechanisms seem to be an important issue which could be linked to the legitimacy of At-Large, and ICANN as an institution. Cheers, David On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 6:30 PM Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Joanna,
Thank you for sharing this interesting read. I briefly tried to look at the study from an At-Large perspective and how we could use some of the learnings to benefit the work that we do. But first let me share some notes and observations from the study which could be of interest to At-Large:
- The study looked into which stakeholder groups have a high influence in shaping the language tone of GNSO meetings, the transcripts analyzed were of the nine GNSO stakeholders, thus the study in that regard is basically an analysis of the language influence and power within the GNSO and not at ICANN in general - ICANN was seen as focusing on technical efficiencies and customer satisfaction, failing to address political and public policy implications - The length of ICANN multi-stakeholder policy development could hinder effective participation of some stakeholders, most probably those who are lesser resourced. - The lack of capacity of lesser resourced stakeholders to understand the complexity of " technically opaque policy fields" can lead to asymmetric power that threatens equal participation. - The importance of an effective accountability mechanism - The Hegemonic discourse analysis focused on GNSO meetings and the role played by language, however the conclusion extends the findings to the entire ICANN multi-stakeholder practice. Extending the findings to the entire ICANN multi-stakeholder practice requires considering stakeholder groups other than the GNSO and other processes and technical considerations. - The quite politics part generally speaking applies to all multi-stakeholder practices, thus it is neither limited specifically to the GNSO nor generally to ICANN - The participatory evangelism part is quite interesting because it speaks to the difference between participation and influence over the decision.
As an At-large community I see a role for us in
- *Addressing the Quite Politics Part:
*Continue to develop skill development programs that help stakeholders with lesser resources understand the policy issues, this would help address the issue of more dominant and skilled groups being in control. - *Addressing Participants Evangelism Part:
*Promoting and ensuring effective accountability mechanisms are in place, which would ensure both participation and influence over decision. - Promote and encourage research within the At-large community in order to know more about At-large participation and how we could improve it.
Kind regards Hadia
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 01:54:39 PM EDT, jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the rich and informative feedback. Indeed, Bill, I thought that comparing and contrasting the three papers (two studies, if you will) was interesting and worthy of an e-mail exchange. It is thought-provoking that, as you observe, an ICANN PDP study fully abstracts from any end-user input. I do share David and Evan’s concerns that the end user community falls largely outside the research scope, regardless of whether its an ICANN-commissioned legitimacy study (J.A. Scholte) or an independent, young researcher’s work with the telling typo in our constituency’s name (van Klyton et al). The quiet politics section is particularly interesting. Referring to the ICANN MSM (not just the GNSO) it notes “a lack of sufficient specialized knowledge“ that “might result in an inability of lesser-resourced stakeholders to sustain high salience for an issue over an extended period, which facilitates control by dominant and more skilled groups”, which is what Maureen points to if I’m reading her message correctly. These are particularly interesting in light of the MSM plenary in Cancun, where we found it difficult to identify specific challenges and offer solutions. This and similar research work might help us – the ICANN community – address these needs, adjust, and evolve, if that’s what we truly wish to see happen. Not that these observations are particularly novel or revolutionary, but they do give us the background to use in our policy and advocacy work.
Any further thoughts are most welcome, thanks for all the feedback received thus far.
With all best wishes,
Joanna
*From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Bill Jouris via CPWG *Sent:* Tuesday, April 18, 2023 7:27 PM *To:* cpwg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings"
Hi Joanna,
Thanks for this.
I note that the study looks (if I'm reading it correctly) at practices *within* the GNSO, rather than across ICANN generally.
There are certainly similarities in the practices. But which ICANN stakeholders dominate the overall organization is, unfortunately, not addressed. And that is something we should be concerned with.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 2:17 AM, jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG
<cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.