*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@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.

_______________________________________________

Npoc-discuss mailing list

Npoc-discuss@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss