[CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings"
David Mackey
mackey361 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 19 13:49:27 UTC 2023
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 at 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 at 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 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> wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230419/60aeedbf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list