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

Thu Apr 20 03:50:09 UTC 2023

Dear All,

This has been a very interesting thread to read.

"Technology" is always around. Yet it eludes definition. In adherence to the Greek word "techne" we began to take cognizance of technology as an act of making or crafting a set of processes and knowledge to [satisfy / extend] human [needs / abilities].

@ ICANN we have a real challenge of positioning a very powerful technology whose complexity far exceeds the imagination of those who use.

I take the liberty of including another word "Responsibility" alongside "Accountability".  The former thrives on a structuring and "roles" specified by election / selection.

Well, just being tongue in cheek, "Responsibility" also has alongside "Blame Worthiness" and "Obligations".

To my mind, ICANN has been demonstrating relatively higher degree of commitment and efficiency among many bodies that are powered by voluntary efforts.

Neither "business instincts" nor "politics" is new in the functional dynamics of voluntary efforts.

It is just that each one of us play a "percentage" game and iteration is an imperative method.

Technology is a transform that enables the modification of the natural world to suit a specific purpose that may at times also be one's own. "Language and Technology" will fortunately be inherently linked.

Just yet another word "Transparency"...

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 at icann.org> on behalf of Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Sent: 19 April 2023 03:59
To: 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris at yahoo.com>; cpwg at icann.org <cpwg at icann.org>; jkuleszaicann at gmail.com <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings"

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<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.

_______________________________________________
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/20230420/56901dfa/attachment-0001.html>