A single comment on a hegemonic ICANN. He says that it is difficult to verify what has been investigated, that the tools used for the investigation are criticized for being unreliable. In addition, ICANN keeps meticulous files of all its meetings that allow its actions to be investigated. There are certain contradictions... Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Denise de alcantara-hochbaum via CPWG Enviado el: martes, 18 de abril de 2023 16:37 Para: jkuleszaicann@gmail.com CC: CPWG CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings" Hi Joanna, Thank you for sharing these academic analyses and initiating a discussion. While the points raised may be controversial in the actual work process, these articles provide a valuable opportunity to broaden our understanding of how ICANN/At-Large has operated during the past 20 years. As someone who is new to this community, I find these articles to be an interesting resource for gaining insight into the roles and actions of the multistakeholder model Denise Avivit de Alcantara Hochbaum, AIA International Member Mobile: +1 (917) 757-2513 910 M Street NW Apt 501 Washington DC Design Factor Solutions, President On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:17 AM jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: Hi all, Thought this might be a useful reference for our MSM discussions: “Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2194295 The authors found that: “three primary rhetorical devices – participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of the status quo – were present, which reinforce the entrenched power structure that favors some stakeholders and interfere with other stakeholders’ efforts to influence Internet governance decisions.” Particularly interesting when compared with the commissioned ICANN study on its legitimacy and accountability, summarized by the authors e.g. here: https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/3204233 and here https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/3446984 We might wish to use these when attempting to ensure more diversity, stronger end user representation, multilingualism and UA, optionally also in SubPro and PICs debates, given the paper’s focus on GNSO and PDPs challenges. Just a thought, with all best wishes, Joanna _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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.