[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

Thu Apr 28 14:17:59 UTC 2016

*Dear NPOC Members*

*After careful deliberations, I have decided to put myself forward as a 
candidate for NPOC Chair in the forthcoming election. *
*In order to become an effective representation of not-for-profit 
operational concerns NPOC needs to undergo some basic changes. As many 
of you know me and my track record, I will not try to impress you with a 
list of activities and titles. Please see below a short statement why I 
think you should vote for me, and a more detailed statement of my 
position on “**Awareness and Capacity Building for Broader and Deeper 
Engagement in ICANN Policy”. *

*If you have questions or issues you would like to raise please contact 
me at *_*kdrstoll at gmail.com* <mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com>_*or reach me 
directly via Skype for a chat [my Skype ID is: klauschasquinet . I will 
also organize an online question and answer session once the election 
has started. I am always available for public */*npoc-discuss*/*online 
discussions with other candidates and the NPOC membership.*

*For formality: I, Klaus Stoll, declare that:*
*I am an active member of NPOC, and that if elected, I consent to serve.*
*I do not have any pecuniary or conflict of interest with ICANN*
*
Yours*
*Klaus*

*Vote For Me, if …*

… you think that in NPOC needs to focus on *enabling its members to 
participate more in ICANN's policy making processes**!*

… you think that in NPOC the *operational concerns, needs and interests 
of the**members should take priority* before everything else!

… you believe that NPOC membership should be an*ongoing win/win 
situation* for all concerned and not just a volunteer duty!

… you want *regular information and communication exchanges* between the 
NPOC leadership and NPOC members!

… NPOC should have *agreed short and long term plans of action* that are 
based on membership input and needs.

… you believe that there are *many levels of how Not-for-Profit 
organizations can and should engage* in Internet Governance, with 
engagement depending an organization’s needs and abilities!

… you want *NPOCs membership to increase significantly* in order to 
strengthen NPOC’s not-for-profit voice in Internet Governance!

… you want NPOC's ongoing *engagement in awareness and capacity building 
programs!*

… you want all NPOC *funding to be fully transparent and accounted* for!

... you want NPOC to actively fund raise in order to *increases the 
participation of NPOC members in Internet Governance processes and events!*

*Don't Vote for Me, if you want Nothing to Change!*

*Awareness and Capacity Building for Broader and Deeper Engagement in 
ICANN Policy and for a Secure and Stable DNS*

*1. ICANN's need for broad Stakeholder engagement*

We are all citizens within the Internet’s ecosystem, as we conduct our 
daily routines with a growing dependence on the policies that govern the 
stability and security of the domain name system (DNS) that lies at the 
root of the Internet. For ICANN, the organization operating the DNS, the 
multistakeholder model of governance is central to policies for the 
stability and security of the global Internet. For ICANN’s governance to 
be robust and defensible, it needs broad and deep stakeholder engagement 
within its "bottom-up, consensus-driven, multistakeholder model" of 
Internet governance.

*2. The vast majority of Internet Citizens are not engaged stakeholders *

Given the financial Interests of ICANN contracted parties stakeholders 
and non-contracted business interests, it comes as no surprise that they 
are heavily and deeply represented as stakeholders in ICANN’s policy 
making and governance processes. It also comes as no surprise that the 
vast majority of Internet ecosystem citizens, the Internet users, are 
not present as engaged stakeholders within the ICANN community. Most 
individual citizens and groups are focused on how they may use the 
Internet as a tool, and do not focus on the Internet and its governance 
/per se/unless current Internet policy impacts them directly. ICANN is 
in a situation where it professes participation by citizens in a 
multistakeholder model of engagement, but where 99% (literally all) of 
those “/citizens/” don’t even know that this governance process exists.

/*3.*///*The dangers of under- and miss- representation*

If ICANN cannot find ways to enable wider and deeper participation in 
ICANN, this will threaten the very legitimacy of ICANN’s 
multistakeholder governance model. The main dangers are 
under-representation and miss-representation:

/*Under-representation*/: Stakeholder group interests are not factored 
into governance and policy making, at all levels, and disproportionate 
weight is exercised by those with a voice and who have direct pecuniary 
interests. Gross under representation of stakeholders leaves ICANN’s 
governance and policy processes open to criticism that it is an 
inadequate multistakeholder process, and a process subject to “capture” 
by narrow commercial interests.

/*Miss-representation*/: A thin representation of the large majority 
gives disproportionate weight to the voice and positions of the few who 
are engaged in the multistakeholder process, and who claim to represent 
the vast number of unaware and unengaged citizens of the Internet ecosystem.

*4. Existing barriers and challenges to broad stakeholder engagement*

ICANN is not unaware of the challenge. It is devoting considerable 
resources to outreach efforts but such efforts have been greeted with 
limited success. This limited success has to do with a fundamental 
misunderstanding of context and the nature of the challenges faced both 
by ICANN and by those underrepresented stakeholder groups. The main 
barriers and challenges are:

*a. */*ICANN centricity and Relevance:*/**A review of outreach efforts 
on ICANN’s website shows that ICANN’s awareness and capacity building is 
focused on promoting and explaining ICANN as an organization. As well 
intended as these efforts are, they are having minimal impact on 
engaging a wider range of DNS users and Internet ecosystem stakeholders. 
A basic disconnect exists because these efforts are designed to promote 
ICANN to organizations, but they do so without making engagement 
relevant to the mission, vision, and needs of the targeted stakeholders.

*b) */*Staff centered strategy:*/A current handicap for ICANN outreach 
and awareness building is the idea that it should be mainly executed and 
guided by ICANN staff. Not only is this contrary to ICANN’s bottom up 
process of governance and engagement, it limits the ability of efforts 
to understand governance issues from the stakeholder’s perspective.

*c) */*Materials and language*/*:*Being staff centric, ICANN’s outreach 
strategy devotes considerable effort to the production of documents and 
educational materials. Much of that material reads mainly as 
navigational tools for understanding ICANN. The material can be dense, 
in the jargon of ICANN, inappropriate to the remits of stakeholders, and 
frequently stands apart from already available in more suitable 
materials and efforts from elsewhere.

*d) */*Understanding volunteers realities and needs:*/The large majority 
of Internet governance volunteers, be they individuals or as 
representatives for not-for-profit, civil society and community 
organizations, participation in Internet governance as volunteers whose 
time and effort are over and above, or apart from, their jobs and 
primary activities. In contrast, contracted parties and much of the 
non-contracted business community engage in ICANN’s policy development 
and processes as part of their job or, in the case of those such as 
lawyers and academics, as part of building career capital. The time and 
effort required for engagement, over and above their other duties, 
effectively excludes broader and deeper engagement by individuals and 
not-for-profit, civil society and community organizations. They simply 
do not have the resources and cannot provide the necessary time, unless 
engagement is seen as a win-win engagement connected to their realities 
and needs.

*5. Overcoming barriers*

How can we begin to overcome the barriers and challenges? On the one 
hand ICANN needs to reflect on how to make its processes more readily 
“/*digestible*/” for easier engagement. On the other hand it needs to 
reflect on how to make volunteer engagement easier. It needs to explore 
ways to facilitate the ease and effectiveness of volunteer effort in its 
governance processes, and it needs to do so in consultation with the 
relevant constituencies, and not by focusing on top down outreach 
processes.

*a. */*Reversing Roles between ICANN staff and Constituency 
Organizations: */The first step would be a reversal of roles between 
ICANN staff and ICANN’s constituency organizations. A communications 
strategy for outreach and engagement needs to start from ICANN’s 
supporting organizations (SOs) and advisory committees (ACs) in 
collaboration with the stakeholder constituency groups. ICANN staff 
should assist SOs, ACs, etc., to build strategy on a constituency 
understanding of context, and with the engagement of local expertise.

*b) */*Relevance through win/win Strategies: */The starting point of all 
engagement has to be what is “/*in it*/” for everybody. Where is the 
win-win for both ICANN and the not-for-profit, civil society, community 
organization constituencies. Part of this will involve greater 
engagement within ICANN governance processes. Part of this will be 
greater involvement in the DNS system, as domain name holders and 
website owners. Part of this will be greater stakeholder involvement in 
the broader Internet issues as stakeholders and citizens of the Internet 
ecosystem. All of this can only be achieved by greater collaboration and 
clearer mutually agreed upon deliverable goals. In order to make ICANN 
relevant and for outreach to succeed, there has to be a “win” for them 
to become engaged in policy and governance as citizens of the Internet 
ecosystem.

*c) */*Making the DNS the focus: */Strategic engagement efforts should 
not start with a focus on the inner workings of ICANN, its multi 
stakeholder model or its policy development processes. Efforts can start 
by stressing the advantages of a secure, stable and reliable DNS, and 
the principles of a free and open internet, but they must also 
incorporate Internet Ecosystem issues that actually confront 
not-for-profit, civil society and community groups, or interest and 
attention will be lost. The task of outreach, with the goals of 
awareness and engagement, is to build an understanding of where, within 
the policy processes of the Internet, specific individual and 
organizational self-interests are on the policy agenda*. *This does not 
draw ICANN beyond its own remit, but it does assist the stakeholder 
community in its understanding of where Internet governance processes 
intersect with its own remit, and where to go, within ICANN or 
elsewhere, to pursue engagement around its Internet governance concerns.

*6. Moving Forward: A Communications Plan focused on Process and Outcomes*

What is needed is a communications plan that is focused on appropriate 
process engagement and outcomes. A plan with content and processes 
should be developed by the SOs and ACs closest to the target 
communities, and prepared with the support of ICANN staff. Both design 
and delivery would involve collaboration with organizations within the 
target communities. Part of the strategy behind a successful 
communications plan would include adequate funding and resource 
commitments jointly raised between ICANN, its SOs and ACs, and 
collaborating partners.

*7. Summary*

How does ICANN achieve broader and deeper engagement in DNS governance 
without going beyond its remit to help stakeholders become more engaged 
as citizens of the overall Internet ecosystem?The short answer is a 
greater collaboration with stakeholders in outreach planning and efforts 
that is sensitive to the context in which individual users, 
not-for-profit, civil society and community groups operate, and an 
outreach that has targeted win-win outcomes from engagement.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160428/4af67041/attachment.html>