Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll
*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.
dear klaus hello i wish you good luck to win the election. i know you very well since 2009 and we work together in GKPF and you are the active one in the group.. we met several times in global conferences especially the WSIS and ICANN 52 and always you are the best and i wish you good luck and i hope most of the group will vote for you. in addition iam willing to nominate you and you deserve my nomination because you are genius in helping people Ahmed Mahmoud Mohamed Eisa <ahmed22digital@gmail.com> +249123031155 Sudani +249912331155 Zain Gedaref digital city organization <http://gedaref.com/>(GDCO) is a nongovernmental and nonprofit organization (Gedaref Sudan), it is part of the Telecentres movement <http://community.telecentre.org/profile/AHMED> where ICT is used for community development. . <http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blog/list?user=21w449uixv4i>GDCO is the winner of seven (7)information <http://www.unite-it.eu/profiles/blogs/gdco-sudan-winner-of-seven-iformation-...> for development awards. It the founder of the firstTelecentre academy in Africa and middle east and the thirteen in world ..GDCO is founded in partnership with the Digital City of Eindhoven (DSE) Netherlands and supported by Eindhoven volunteers for gedaref projects (SPEG ) On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@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@gmail.com>kdrstoll@gmail.com <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
Excellent news Klaus. How de we make sure your candidacy is in the page for the elections? http://npoc.org/index.php?p=npoc2016elections Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 28 Apr 2016, at 8:17, Klaus Stoll 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@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
Dear Carlos, We have the election page and candidate statements on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NPOCC/Candidates You will find information for the election process and all candidates statements here. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: maryam.bakoshi@icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi@icann.org> Mobile: +44 7737 698036 Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann From: <npoc-discuss-bounces@icann.org<mailto:npoc-discuss-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Date: Thursday, 28 April 2016 at 15:58 To: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@gmail.com<mailto:kdrstoll@gmail.com>> Cc: NPOC Discuss <npoc-discuss@icann.org<mailto:npoc-discuss@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Npoc-discuss] Self Nomination NPOC Chair Klaus Stoll Excellent news Klaus. How de we make sure your candidacy is in the page for the elections? http://npoc.org/index.php?p=npoc2016elections Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 28 Apr 2016, at 8:17, Klaus Stoll 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@gmail.com*<mailto:*_*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<mailto:Npoc-discuss@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss _______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org<mailto:Npoc-discuss@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
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@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@gmail.com>kdrstoll@gmail.com <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
+1 @Joan. 2016-04-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 Joan Kerr <joankerr@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@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@gmail.com>kdrstoll@gmail.com <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
_______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@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*
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@upch.pe http://murrugarralady.wix.com/ladymurrugarra Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:19:31 -0400 From: joankerr@fbsc.org To: kdrstoll@gmail.com CC: npoc-discuss@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@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@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 _______________________________________________ Npoc-discuss mailing list Npoc-discuss@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss
Dear NPOC members, As a former Chair of NPOC, I would like to express that I am supporting Klaus' candidacy to be the next Chair of NPOC. Klaus has been involved since the beginning with NPOC, he is the only one in our community who seated at the GNSO council, a key space where we can - and should- input strongly to influence the policies being discussed, and he has a deep knowledge of the NGO sector. I am also confident that Klaus has the ability to represent us well at NCSG level seeking common ground for pending topics (policy-related, administrative and others) on the agenda which need to be further discussed. Kind regards, Marie-laure On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@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@gmail.com>kdrstoll@gmail.com <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
participants (8)
-
ahmed eisa sudan -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
Joan Kerr -
Klaus Stoll -
Lady Murrugarra -
marie-laure Lemineur -
Maryam Bakoshi -
Olévié Kouami