ICANN 72: Navigating the Hybrid Meeting Challenge and the Quest for Global Inclusivity

The global landscape of internet governance is once again at a critical juncture, grappling with the complexities of stakeholder engagement in a post-pandemic world. As the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) plans its next Annual General Meeting, ICANN 72, scheduled for this October in Seattle, a significant debate has emerged. A notable faction of the ICANN community, specifically members from the Asia, Australia, and Pacific Islands (APAC) region, has voiced strong opposition to an in-person component, highlighting the persistent challenges of achieving true global inclusivity in a hybrid meeting format.

This discussion isn’t merely about logistics; it delves into the fundamental principles of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, which thrives on equitable participation from diverse global voices. The decision facing ICANN’s board this month is therefore pivotal, weighing the benefits of physical interaction against the imperative of ensuring no community is left behind due to ongoing global disparities and restrictions.

The ICANN 72 Dilemma: Hybrid Model Meets Global Realities

ICANN’s board is currently deliberating the final format for ICANN 72. Following a comprehensive survey of past attendees, the sentiment largely favored a hybrid approach – incorporating both in-person and virtual elements. This outcome reflects a widespread desire within the community to reconnect physically, to foster the kind of spontaneous collaboration and relationship-building that virtual platforms often struggle to replicate. Yet, the enthusiasm for an in-person component is not universal, particularly among those facing formidable barriers to travel.

The concept of a hybrid meeting, while seemingly a pragmatic compromise, presents its own set of challenges, especially for an organization with a global mandate like ICANN. It aims to offer the best of both worlds, providing flexibility for those unable to travel while facilitating face-to-face interactions for others. However, as the APAC community’s concerns underscore, a hybrid model can inadvertently create a two-tiered participation experience, potentially marginalizing those who can only join remotely. The success of such a model hinges on its ability to genuinely bridge geographical and technological divides, ensuring that all participants, regardless of their physical presence, have an equal voice and opportunity to contribute meaningfully.

APAC’s Voice: Advocating for Global Equity and Overcoming Disadvantage

The APAC Space community has been particularly vocal, formally addressing ICANN with a letter (pdf) on Tuesday. Their core argument revolves around the principle of equitable participation. They contend that many of their members would be unable to travel to Seattle due to a confluence of factors, including persistent travel restrictions, visa challenges, economic constraints, and varying vaccine availability and requirements across different nations. The group firmly expressed its reluctance to see a hybrid meeting proceed if it means a significant portion of their diverse membership cannot be present.

A key point raised in their letter, though interpreted differently by some, highlights a nuanced perspective on time zone management:

Face-to-face ICANN meetings put all participants on an equal footing by overcoming time zone differences. The principal beneficiaries of a face-to-face meeting are those from outside the region of the meeting location, for whom attendance eliminates time zone disadvantage. In our opinion, a face-to-face meeting in which a sizable proportion of our diverse, global community cannot attend significantly disadvantages all those not in attendance.

While the initial reaction might be that a virtual meeting still involves time zone differences, the APAC argument points to the unifying effect of physical attendance. When all participants physically gather in a single location, regardless of their origin, they operate within a shared time zone for the duration of the event. This centralizes the meeting schedule, removing the burden of individuals having to adjust to vastly different local times from their home countries. In contrast, a virtual meeting anchored to Seattle’s time zone would disproportionately impact participants in the APAC region, forcing them to engage in critical discussions during inconvenient overnight hours. The group’s concern is that if a significant number from their region cannot make this journey, then the very benefit of a centralized, in-person meeting – the equalization of time zone challenges – is lost for those who are forced to participate remotely, thus creating a tangible disadvantage.

Furthermore, the APAC community stresses the invaluable nature of in-person interactions for fostering the collaborative spirit that is the bedrock of ICANN’s model. Their letter clearly states:

In-person attendance provides an environment for building collaborative relationships which contribute much to the ability to progress work within the community between face-to-face meetings.

This underlines a critical aspect of internet governance: it’s not just about formal sessions, but also the informal “hallway track” – the spontaneous conversations, networking, and trust-building that occurs outside structured meetings. These interactions are fundamental to forging consensus, resolving disputes, and advancing policy work in a complex, multi-stakeholder environment. By being unable to participate physically, APAC members fear they will be excluded from these crucial informal processes, hindering their ability to effectively contribute and progress the community’s work.

ICANN’s Balancing Act: Logistical Realities and Community Desires

ICANN faces a formidable challenge in balancing these competing desires and logistical realities. On one hand, a strong contingent of its global community, as indicated by the survey results, yearns for a return to in-person meetings. The benefits are clear: enhanced collaboration, deeper engagement, and the rekindling of personal connections that strengthen the fabric of the community. For many, physical presence leads to more focused and productive discussions, reducing the distractions inherent in remote work environments.

Moreover, the decision to host an in-person event has significant economic implications. Cancelling or fully virtualizing large-scale international conferences like ICANN meetings can have a detrimental impact on the local economy of the host city, affecting hotels, restaurants, transportation services, and myriad small businesses that rely on convention tourism. ICANN, like any major organization, must consider these broader economic ripple effects in its decision-making process.

It is also worth noting that even before the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial number of participants attended ICANN meetings virtually, even when physical events were taking place. This demonstrates a pre-existing trend towards remote participation, driven by various factors including cost, time constraints, and personal preferences. This history suggests that while the desire for in-person meetings is strong, the infrastructure and expectation for robust virtual engagement were already being built.

Ultimately, ICANN’s core mission is to facilitate inclusive global internet governance. This means ensuring that its meetings are accessible and equitable for all stakeholders, regardless of their geographical location or the prevailing global circumstances. The organization must carefully weigh the tangible benefits of in-person interaction for some against the potential for marginalization and exclusion of others. The ongoing pandemic has exposed and exacerbated existing inequalities, making the task of truly inclusive global participation more complex than ever.

Redefining Global Engagement in the Post-Pandemic Era

The debate surrounding ICANN 72 is a microcosm of a larger discussion happening across international organizations worldwide: how to effectively maintain global engagement and collaboration in an era forever changed by the pandemic. The shift towards hybrid models is often seen as the future, but their implementation requires careful thought and investment.

For a hybrid meeting to be truly successful and inclusive, it demands more than just simultaneous physical and virtual streams. It requires robust technological infrastructure, dedicated support for remote participants, innovative facilitation techniques that bridge the physical and digital divide, and a conscious effort to ensure virtual attendees are not relegated to a secondary status. This might involve creating specific virtual networking opportunities, dedicated online engagement platforms, and mechanisms to ensure their voices are heard as clearly as those in the room. The goal should be to minimize the perception of a “main” event for physical attendees and a “secondary” event for virtual ones.

Looking Ahead: Fostering Inclusivity in Internet Governance

The path forward for ICANN 72, and indeed for future ICANN meetings, necessitates a thoughtful and empathetic approach. The organization must demonstrate its commitment to the multi-stakeholder model by actively seeking solutions that mitigate the disadvantages highlighted by the APAC community and other groups facing similar challenges. This could involve exploring alternative formats, staggering sessions across time zones, or investing in cutting-edge virtual collaboration tools to enhance the remote experience.

The ultimate decision regarding ICANN 72 will not only determine the immediate future of this specific meeting but will also set a precedent for how ICANN intends to navigate global participation in the years to come. It’s a testament to the ongoing evolution of internet governance, where the pursuit of connectivity and collaboration must continuously adapt to ensure equity and access for every voice across the digital and physical divides. The dialogue between ICANN’s board and its diverse community members is crucial, reflecting the very principles of transparency and consensus-building that underpin the internet’s global management.