[Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll
Lady Murrugarra
lmurrugarra at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 28 15:54:46 UTC 2016
Congratulations Klaus.
Hi Joan!
All the best from Peru 😊
Lady MURRUGARRA, Coordinador de Telesalud / Telemedicinahttp://www.seis.es/SaludConectada/comite.html
https://tics2007.wordpress.com/noticias/
https://www.isfteh.org/working_groups/category/e_hispanic
SKYPE: ladymurrugarra EMAIL: lady.murrugarra at upch.pe
http://murrugarralady.wix.com/ladymurrugarra
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:19:31 -0400
From: joankerr at fbsc.org
To: kdrstoll at gmail.com
CC: npoc-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160428/5921759e/attachment.html>
More information about the Npoc-discuss
mailing list