*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(a)gmail.com* <mailto:kdrstoll@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.
