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

Tue Apr 18 18:09:19 UTC 2023

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 at 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 at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:31 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg at 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 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> 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/20230418/93281325/attachment-0001.html>