ICANN Meeting Dynamics How Policy Is Negotiated in Person

The policy development processes that underpin the governance of the Domain Name System (DNS) are complex, multi-layered, and often protracted. While much of ICANN’s work occurs in email threads, virtual workspaces, and public comment periods, the in-person ICANN meetings that occur three times annually remain the most critical venue for real-time policy negotiation and consensus-building. These meetings, held in different global regions to foster geographic inclusiveness and stakeholder accessibility, serve as the fulcrum of ICANN’s multistakeholder model. They bring together governments, technical experts, registries, registrars, intellectual property advocates, civil society, end-users, and corporate actors in an intensive week-long convergence of deliberation, advocacy, and procedural maneuvering. The physical proximity and immediacy of dialogue that ICANN meetings provide are uniquely conducive to bridging divides, softening entrenched positions, and driving policy forward in a way that virtual platforms often struggle to replicate.

At their core, ICANN meetings function as accelerators for the community’s ongoing policy work, most of which is carried out within Working Groups under the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO), among others. These groups are tasked with developing consensus-based policies that ICANN’s Board may adopt and implement. In-person meetings give stakeholders the opportunity to hold deep-dive sessions, where the subtleties of technical standards, legal language, or political implications can be unpacked more thoroughly than through asynchronous discussions. Face-to-face interaction fosters trust, enables clarification of intent, and allows delegates to read body language and tone—factors that are particularly important when negotiating contentious issues or drafting compromise language.

One of the distinctive features of ICANN meetings is the use of open and cross-community sessions. These forums allow different Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to coordinate and exchange views on shared policy concerns. For example, when the GNSO is working on a policy affecting data privacy, it will often engage with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which may offer perspectives rooted in national laws and public policy. These interactions are critical to aligning bottom-up policy development with public interest considerations, and the physical setting of an ICANN meeting enables more candid, real-time exchanges than formal correspondence. While the GAC’s advice to the Board is non-binding, its ability to flag concerns or suggest alternative approaches early in the policy process can significantly influence outcomes.

Equally important are the hallway conversations and informal caucusing that occur between scheduled sessions. These interactions are where much of the actual negotiation takes place. Delegates use coffee breaks, receptions, and side meetings to test ideas, float compromises, and probe the flexibility of other parties’ positions. These moments of informal diplomacy often reveal opportunities for agreement that may not emerge in more structured sessions. Seasoned participants understand that much of ICANN’s consensus-building happens not just at the microphone, but over meals, walks between sessions, or brief conversations in a hotel lobby. The interpersonal relationships cultivated in these settings can be instrumental in resolving deadlocks and building coalitions.

Another key dynamic of ICANN meetings is the influence of real-time feedback. Sessions are often webcast and open to public participation, with remote attendees able to submit questions and comments. This hybrid format enables transparency and accountability, ensuring that in-person deliberations are subject to broader community scrutiny. It also allows remote stakeholders to remain engaged, though the immediacy and intensity of being physically present still carry weight in shaping outcomes. Being in the room conveys commitment and investment in the process, which can enhance a stakeholder’s credibility and leverage. In high-stakes policy discussions—such as those involving access to registration data, DNS abuse mitigation, or the delegation of sensitive TLD strings—physical presence can serve as both a statement of interest and a strategic advantage.

Working Group leadership also relies on ICANN meetings to advance procedural milestones. In-person working sessions allow co-chairs to guide members through document reviews, tackle redlines in real time, and seek alignment on contentious issues. These sessions are typically high-pressure environments, with policy deadlines looming and community expectations high. The chairs must balance equitable participation, efficient time management, and consensus tracking—all in a transparent setting. Participants often arrive at these meetings with months of preparation, having submitted position papers, drafted compromise language, or engaged in bilateral outreach to secure support for their views.

The ICANN Board of Directors plays a pivotal, though somewhat removed, role in the meeting dynamic. While the Board does not engage in policy development directly, it attends key community sessions, holds open forums to hear stakeholder concerns, and meets with each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee. These engagements provide the Board with insight into community sentiment and help shape its eventual decisions. The Board’s presence at ICANN meetings underscores the accountability of the organization and reinforces the feedback loop between policy development and implementation.

However, the benefits of in-person ICANN meetings are not without challenges. Participation requires significant time, travel, and financial resources, which can limit access for stakeholders from developing regions, small businesses, or underrepresented groups. ICANN has attempted to address these disparities through fellowship programs, travel support, and remote participation tools, but barriers remain. Ensuring that the policymaking process remains equitable and inclusive—even as in-person dynamics exert strong influence—continues to be a core concern of the community. There is also the question of meeting fatigue and sustainability, as the pace and volume of sessions can be overwhelming, particularly for newcomers or those balancing multiple stakeholder roles.

As the internet governance landscape becomes more geopolitically charged and technically complex, the value of ICANN’s in-person meetings as spaces of trust-building, deliberation, and compromise will only grow. The ability to look one’s interlocutors in the eye, to read their reactions, to test policy language live with those it will affect—these are not easily replicable in virtual environments. In-person negotiation offers a depth of engagement that remains indispensable to the ICANN model, where consensus is built not by vote counts but by mutual understanding and iterative agreement.

In sum, ICANN meetings are far more than technical conferences or administrative gatherings. They are the crucibles in which global internet policy is negotiated, where theory is reconciled with practice, and where stakeholders across ideologies and geographies co-create the rules that govern the DNS. As ICANN continues to evolve, the dynamics of these meetings will remain central to its legitimacy, its efficacy, and its mission to preserve the security, stability, and openness of the global internet.

The policy development processes that underpin the governance of the Domain Name System (DNS) are complex, multi-layered, and often protracted. While much of ICANN’s work occurs in email threads, virtual workspaces, and public comment periods, the in-person ICANN meetings that occur three times annually remain the most critical venue for real-time policy negotiation and consensus-building.…