[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

Thu Apr 28 15:10:41 UTC 2016

Dear Carlos,

We have the election page and candidate statements on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Candidates
You will find information for the election process and all candidates statements here.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile:  +44 7737 698036
Skype:  maryam.bakoshi.icann

From: <npoc-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:npoc-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>
Date: Thursday, 28 April 2016 at 15:58
To: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com<mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com>>
Cc: NPOC Discuss <npoc-discuss at icann.org<mailto:npoc-discuss at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

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*> <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<mailto:Npoc-discuss at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
_______________________________________________
Npoc-discuss mailing list
Npoc-discuss at icann.org<mailto:Npoc-discuss at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160428/2d827766/attachment.html>