[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

Excellent news Klaus. How de we make sure your candidacy is in the page 
for the elections?
http://npoc.org/index.php?p=npoc2016elections

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 28 Apr 2016, at 8:17, Klaus Stoll wrote:

> *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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss