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

Thu Apr 20 05:13:21 UTC 2023

I believe that we are responsible to end users, and we must make sure to bring their concerns and needs to the Board of Directors. We have a very large number of ALSs around the world, but we say that many are inactive. I've said that many times in many ICANN meetings, including before the Board. It is true, there are some ALSs that are no longer the organization with which they entered the RALOs. But the vast majority are not inactive, they are doing their thing, but they are not doing the activities that relate to ICANN. So we don't have the necessary feedback between the end user and RALO - ALAC - ICANN.

I always proposed a small modification so that the ALSs participate actively. Suggest some topics from each RALO to their ALSs, coordinating with ALAC. For example in two areas: Universal Acceptance and DNS SEC. Can you imagine that our ALSs are collectors of all the necessary information with only one common guide adjusted to each region, coordinated with the corresponding teams?

In a not so extensive time the effects would be seen. And in addition, the different items necessary to be able to adequately advise the Board could be added.

Unfortunately I was never heard.

Kind regards

Alberto

De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> En nombre de Bill Jouris via CPWG
Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de abril de 2023 23:40
Para: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
CC: cpwg at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [CPWG] Suggested reading: "Hegemonic practices in multistakeholder Internet governance: Participatory evangelism, quiet politics, and glorification of status quo at ICANN meetings"

Hi Evan, 

I would be interested to know who you think At Large *should* be accountable to.  And, especially if it as global a group as I expect, how you envision doing selection involving that group.  

I don't disagree with the goal of At Large being more broadly accountable to those whose interests we are trying to champion.  But I'm not seeing a realistic way to make it happen.  Perhaps that's merely a failure of imagination on my part.  But I'd like to see a concrete proposal for something different and visibly better before deciding we must junk what we have at the moment. 

Regards,  

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 Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 8:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch 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/20230420/c35e51e4/attachment.html>