[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll

Thu Apr 28 15:30:48 UTC 2016

+1 @Joan.


2016-04-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org>:

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


-- 
*Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI*
*Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT SOLUTIONS sarl **Editeur de logiciels de
gestion (PGI/ERP) S.I.G.E. (http://www.oandkit.com
<http://www.oandkit.com>)*

*Président/CEO de l'INTIC4DEV (Institut des TIC pour le développement)
http://www.intic4dev.org <http://www.intic4dev.org> *

*Eminent National Expert for the World Summit Award
(http://www.wsis-award.org <http://www.wsis-award.org>) *

*Secrétaire Général de l'ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des
professionnels des TIC (http://www.estetic.tg <http://www.estetic.tg>)*

*ICANN-GNSO-NCSG-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.npoc.org/
<http://www.npoc.org/>)**ICANN - Fellow & Alumni (http://www.icann.org
<http://www.icann.org>) - Membre de Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org
<http://www.isoc.org>) *
*Membre fondateur du RIK-Togo (Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)
*(http://www.globalshea.com)
*Skype : olevie1   FaceBook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé –
Togo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160428/ad6b201d/attachment.html>