Thx Joanna- Very insightful. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Apr 18, 2023, at 5:17 AM, jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG <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 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.

Thank you, Joanna. This is an interesting read. Sarah On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:17 AM jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG <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 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.

Joanna, Many thanks for sharing the article at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2194295 [https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showOpenGraphCoverImage?journalCode=utis20]<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2194295> 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> In this exploratory study we examine a less scrutinized aspect of multistakeholder arrangements: the presence and directionality of hegemonic power in the language used in the stakeholder deliberat... www.tandfonline.com "However, as the users of the Internet increased exponentially since the 1990s, the “technical regime” (Hofmann Citation2009<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2194295#>) came to be seen as ill-suited for dealing with the consequent economic, legal, political, and social issues (Goldsmith and Wu Citation2006<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2194295#>)." - My choice excerpt from this article. I was very actively with Internet Governance through ICANN until the end of 2007. I think that the DNS Wars were largely the outcome of the pronounced shift to make technology sublime and hope that is the best way of catering to the end-users who keep increasing exponentially. To my mind, IDNs was a great idea to restore the balance. "Language" is the stiffest challenge in this approach till today. It is thus very understandable that factors associated with Language and Governance do manifest. Some of them are briskly outlined in this article. It is a good article to read but no real surprise factors for me. The ICANN multi-stakeholder model is worth working with systemic ideas such as resilience and an elucidation on the fact that a "Personal" computer does warrant "Personal" focus with a set of "Personal" Aspects going down the wire and into the world connected by the Internet. A device / thing in any form has a "Personal Ownership" tag [Not all of this is necessarily what we call "Data"]. The ICANN Model for Mutli-stakeholder may have to foster "Collaboration of Civilizations" at large. The economics at the edge are the serious concern. It is time to get the technology - edge in ICANN yet again. Your thoughts.... Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 18 April 2023 14:47 To: 'CPWG CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings" 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

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:31 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

It may be noted that ALAC is only referenced once in the article content, and then only as a definition. Even the definition of ALAC has a spelling error ... "Ad-Large Advisory Committee".

Incorrect. Under section 4 we have: *"an absence of awareness of ICANN among the public at large leaves the regime with a narrow base of legitimacy. True, the world’s 4.7 billion regular internet users (as of 2020) obtain notional representation in the ICANN multistakeholder framework through the At-Large Constituency. However, participants in At-Large are self-selected and have few systematic communications with the wider public."* Plus, the 2017 At-Large Review is cited in the bibliography. So, the authors are aware of ALAC and At-Large but dismiss its significance in ICANN's governance. Sounds accurate to me. As I have said repeatedly... concentrating all efforts on *user-focused public education* and *selective advocacy based on research of public needs* is ALAC's best (and I would argue only) path to legitimacy. - Evan

Hi Maureen, You're absolutely right that ALAC is at a multi-pronged disadvantage compared to the SOs, whose members are paid to be self-serving and devote sufficient resources to ICANN work so as to immerse themselves in jargon and technical detail. The GAC and SSAC are also disadvantaged but not to the same extent as ALAC because their people are (generally) there because of their regular job duties. Most At-Largers are doing this on their own time. Under the status quo ALAC will be forever dragged down by the vested interests. Our resources are destined to be consumed with just trying to keep up with people whose whole jobs exist to game the ICANN process. My point is that we don't have to play their game. ALAC has a singular bylaw task -- advise the Board on the interests of Internet end-users. It's not obligated to react to every Public Comment process. It's not obligated to react to ANY of them: At-Large is fully within its mandate fully independent of what the SOs think is important right now. What do WE think is important? Why can't we set our own agenda? Think of how many staff are devoted to At-Large. How much better could that resource be used in service to public education and public research, rather than deciding which wretched PCPs to follow and which do not. It has always been a frustration to me that Heidi has a doctorate in policy development yet spends most time on admin and herding cats. What other talents are we wasting that could be better spent directly in serve of those for whom we are mandated to speak? What good is being uber-inclusive but irrelevant? It is *our* job to de-jargonize ICANN, nobody else has an interest in doing so. Are we up to it? ALAC has forever been plagued by "what will they think of us?" syndrome, fearful that setting our own agenda to fulfil our bylaw role will run us afoul of ICANN staff and other constituencies. First it was travel subsidies hanging over our heads -- play nice or you can't come to the meetings. Then have since been other implied threats that have caused us to stop short of asserting what we wanted to please the agendas of others. To me it's a subtle but insidious form of self-censorship. It's not as if decades of doing what they want gains ALAC respect from elsewhere in the ICANN community. Look at the last At-Large Review. The SOs surveyed show contempt for ALAC when not forced to speak publicly. If they're going to hate us anyway, why not just follow the path we need and stop trying to please everyone else? There is a path out, which is why I remain involved. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:01 PM Maureen Hilyard via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

It would be good to have similar research done on the AC communities who aren't paid to produce the outputs that are pushed by the various GNSO constituencies each guarding their own group's interests. 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. It is forgotten that ACs cannot be effective in the work of communication to the public at-large when the language of the information they have to work with is targetted at the wider SO technical community and may be incomprehensible to the AC lay-person. How often do the ALAC and the GAC have to make that point?

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 6:38 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

...

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:31 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

...

It may be noted that ALAC is only referenced once in the article content, and then only as a definition. Even the definition of ALAC has a spelling error ... "Ad-Large Advisory Committee".

Incorrect.

Under section 4 we have:

*"an absence of awareness of ICANN among the public at large leaves the regime with a narrow base of legitimacy. True, the world’s 4.7 billion regular internet users (as of 2020) obtain notional representation in the ICANN multistakeholder framework through the At-Large Constituency. However, participants in At-Large are self-selected and have few systematic communications with the wider public."*

Plus, the 2017 At-Large Review is cited in the bibliography. So, the authors are aware of ALAC and At-Large but dismiss its significance in ICANN's governance. Sounds accurate to me.

As I have said repeatedly... concentrating all efforts on *user-focused public education* and *selective advocacy based on research of public needs* is ALAC's best (and I would argue only) path to legitimacy.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ 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.

Many thanks Joanna for the share, it was worth reading. Kind regards, Bukola. On Tue, 18 Apr 2023, 10:17 jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG, <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 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.

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 <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.

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 regardsHadia   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   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.

I see the issue of accountability as one of a few that keep At-Large obsessed with its own internal processes to the detriment of its actually being able to affect change within ICANN. Consider that: - Fully one-third of ALAC, assigned to it by the Nominating Committee is unaccountable to anyone *by design* - The rest is elected from At-Large Structures, a self-selected group of organizations that themselves are accountable, at best, to a membership that usually doesn't care -- or by self-selected individuals accountable only to themselves - No mechanisms have ever been contemplated -- let alone put in place -- to enable accountability to the mainstream of Internet users - After decades of debate At-Large is far from resolution of whether its constituency is registrants or non-registrant end-users. A distressing amount of ALAC commentary is in service to registrants, rather than non-registrant end-users who really couldn't care less about, for instance, registrar-registry relationships. Out of all the qualities that have come to define At-Large's aspirational vision of itself -- accountable, transparent, diverse -- the component that gets the least attention is effective. We spend far more time on internal processes than policy, and over my decades of involvement I have come to the belief that this is deliberate. That is, so long as ALAC continues to consume itself with ... itself ... it will forever be retarded in its bylaw-given mandate. As such, the vested interests maintain a clear path to inflict their path without any resistance from the public interest. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:49 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

Hi Olivier, On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:25 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Evan,

On 19/04/2023 16:10, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:

We spend far more time on internal processes than policy, and over my decades of involvement I have come to the belief that this is deliberate. That is, so long as ALAC continues to consume itself with ... itself ... it will forever be retarded in its bylaw-given mandate. As such, the vested interests maintain a clear path to inflict their path without any resistance from the public interest.

Have you recently attended a CPWG call? Your description of spending more time on internal procedures rather than policy might have been true a decade ago, but not now. I would suggest you update your view of At-Large.

CPWG != At-Large Pretty well everything that At-Large does outside of CPWG is process not policy. Last year I witnessed a long process to change the bylaws for NARALO that, among other things, increased both term limits and the length of terms. More mechanisms to keep the same revolving door of the same self-selected people in leadership positions, and in the process suck up substantial volunteer time in their development. Other discussions sought to disenfranchise ALSs that didn't participate "enough".What utter waste of time. As for CPWG, I read in advance the agendas for each call that comes up. I'll attend when there is something that I think has a substantial impact on non-registrant end-users. So far the pickings have been slim. For example, on today's call, I learned that the Applicant Support GNSO

Guidance Process has evolved well thanks to the excellent work of our colleagues,

Thank you for helping to make my point for me. If you recall, I was co-chair of ICANN's very first Applicant Support project, so I know it intimately. In hindsight I regret my involvement, for I realize that there is absolutely zero impact for end-users whether the Applicant Support program exists or not. This program is to help would-be registries who need subsidy for various reasons. Whether Applicant Support succeeds or fails has an impact on contracted parties. Non-registrant end-users have no stake in this whatsoever; in fact most end-users have no care at all in who owns the various registries except perhaps for the CCs. So ... ALAC's involvement in Applicant Support is a complete diversion from its bylaw mandate. Volunteer time spent on Applicant Support is time not spent on discovering and acting upon what non-registrant end-users really need from ICANN. Such mission-creep must be dialed back for ALAC to be effective in its bylaw role. that there's also been some progress in the GNSO DNS Abuse Small Team

discussions and our representative there has done great work in conveying the At-Large's community points.

Our representative there? DNS Abuse is, from what I can see, the only policy issue on the table that affects end-users. At-Large should be focusing its efforts here well beyond sending a representative into a community more focused on revenue than public good. I've also found out that the global "Universal Acceptance" day has had a

global impact thanks to so many ALSes doing excellent work and organising events locally.

Nobody yet has offered a refutation of my assertion that UA is essentially a marketing campaign, with the ultimate goal to encourage greater sales (and greater revenue for ICANN) from domains in non-Latin character sets. Success in UA benefits ICANN and its contracted parties and it *may* benefit registrants in non-latin-script countries, but the benefits to end-users are minimal. In any case, the effort is way too late to be useful now... every country has learned how to cope with Latin scripts and many have moved on to non-memorable-name ways to access Internet content. Meanwhile, the addition of multiple scripts offers massive opportunities for domain abuse that UA doesn't address. I was really disappointed that "UA Day" had nothing to do with Ukraine. And I have also found out that the ALAC is going to be extra busy at the

forthcoming ICANN77 Policy forum because it's become a respected key player in many of the policy processes currently developed at ICANN.

Keeping busy is NEVER a problem in ICANN, there is always some vacuum that needs filling. And, sorry, Olivier, I've heard this story before, and so have you. I can probably find emails from a decade ago with the same claim. "Hey look, they're listening to us now!!" Rather than just hearing what makes us feel good, it's more important to consider the surveys done for the At-Large Review that allowed people to answer privately. In those surveys the rest of the ICANN community demonstrated barely-concealed contempt for At-Large, even while at that time telling us publicly how important we are. Nothing has changed. So long as we go along with the vested interests we're a "respected key player". The moment we advocate any position contrary to the status quo (like perhaps that we already have enough TLDs or there's not enough RRA enforcement), watch that respect evaporate in an instant. I know you've seen that happen at least once because I was in the room with you when registry lobbyists were yelling "WHO THE **** ARE YOU?!? "at us when we proposed things they didn't like. The other main point here is that we're a player -- key or not, time will tell -- always reactive to the agendas of others. ALAC can't/won't assert the public interest into ICANN and demand that the other parties react to us. And all of this with a very diverse and strong input from the people that

attend the CPWG call each week, thus making it possibly one of the most vibrant communities discussing ICANN policy within ICANN - and that is also attracting some Board members enjoying observing the discussions as well as members of other SOs and ACs.

When is the last time that ALAC wrote a white paper asserting public-interest positions, that attempted to set an agenda rather than just react to it? Long enough ago that I was an author. As well, I see LESS of the direct ALAC-GAC collaboration that existed during my time in the ALAC executive, when the two public-interest bodies in ICANN found common ground and actively supported each other's activities. Sorry, Olivier, but while the platitudes may have increased, ALAC's actual effectiveness within ICANN has actually diminished over the years. It's become part of the funiture. Diverse, motivated, vibrant, self-absorbed, and "respected" so long as it does nothing more but make minor tweaks to the objectives of the vested interests. And finally I would remind that on the biggest Internet-domain issue to affect end users in the last decade -- the proposed sale of .ORG to a venture capital firm -- ALAC absolutely dropped the ball. The public interest had to be asserted by the California Attorney General. When it counted most, ALAC failed MISERABLY. To conclude, the academic report that started this thread was quite accurate in dismissing the role of ALAC. There are ways to fix this, but not following its current path. At-Large needs a complete overhaul in its processes as well as its objectives. - Evan

I believe that we are responsible to end users, and we must make sure to bring their concerns and needs to the Board of Directors. We have a very large number of ALSs around the world, but we say that many are inactive. I've said that many times in many ICANN meetings, including before the Board. It is true, there are some ALSs that are no longer the organization with which they entered the RALOs. But the vast majority are not inactive, they are doing their thing, but they are not doing the activities that relate to ICANN. So we don't have the necessary feedback between the end user and RALO - ALAC - ICANN. I always proposed a small modification so that the ALSs participate actively. Suggest some topics from each RALO to their ALSs, coordinating with ALAC. For example in two areas: Universal Acceptance and DNS SEC. Can you imagine that our ALSs are collectors of all the necessary information with only one common guide adjusted to each region, coordinated with the corresponding teams? In a not so extensive time the effects would be seen. And in addition, the different items necessary to be able to adequately advise the Board could be added. Unfortunately I was never heard. Kind regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Bill Jouris via CPWG Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de abril de 2023 23:40 Para: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> CC: 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 Evan, I would be interested to know who you think At Large *should* be accountable to. And, especially if it as global a group as I expect, how you envision doing selection involving that group. I don't disagree with the goal of At Large being more broadly accountable to those whose interests we are trying to champion. But I'm not seeing a realistic way to make it happen. Perhaps that's merely a failure of imagination on my part. But I'd like to see a concrete proposal for something different and visibly better before deciding we must junk what we have at the moment. Regards, Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 8:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.

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> 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 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.