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

Wed Apr 19 21:29:47 UTC 2023

Hi Olivier,

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:25 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <
cpwg at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230419/6a9dd678/attachment.html>