[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

[Joan Kerr]

Dear Klaus,

Congratulations on your nomination as chair.  As you may know Ahmed Eisa
has seconded your nomination.  All nominees will be posted on :
https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Candidates and will be overseen
by Maryam Bakoshi.

Regards,
Joan Kerr,
NPOC Membership Chair


On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com> 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>kdrstoll at gmail.com <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160428/405ad61e/attachment.html>