[CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings"

[jkuleszaicann at gmail.com]

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 at icann.org> On Behalf Of Bill Jouris via CPWG
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 7:27 PM
To: cpwg at 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_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature> 

 

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 2:17 AM, jkuleszaicann--- via CPWG

<cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> > wrote:

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at 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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230418/49dc3be1/attachment-0001.html>