I agree with Klaus that “broad stakeholder engagement” is needed. I have
attempted to discuss ICANN with my colleagues (independent/community media
producers and communications academics) but hit a wall of glazed-over eyes
when trying to explain the importance of DNS regulation.
I was surprised at the recently expressed hostility towards Net Mundial. At
the very least the Brazilian initiative was a successfully wide-reaching
example of a global discussion of internet governance via historic use of
technology for interactive exchange.
One obvious problem in “non-commercial” participation is the lack of
adequate support for the cost of face to face participation. Of course
commercial entities can afford to ensure their strong involvement! How can
civil society representatives become more than the ignored token 1%? That
is the question.

The burgeoning ICANN budget has increased ICANN staff (certainly an
incentive that lead to the opening of more domains) but has not enabled
more non-commercial (and diverse) participation.

Even if I had the frequent flier miles to get to Marrakech, how could I
afford the posh hotels available?
DeeDee


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Klaus Stoll <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Niels
>
> You asked:
>
> "Isn't this ecactly what the civil society engagement strategy is for? I
> think that's exactly what the board will answer as well."
> *My answer to this is simply that the present ICANN civil Siciety engagement strategy is misguided and is in need of urgent correction. I can not go into details here but **basically**:*
>
>
> *ICANN's needs broad Stakeholder engagement**. The vast majority of
> Internet ecosystem citizens are not present as engaged stakeholders * *resulting
> in **dangers of under- and miss- representation**. Existing barriers and *
> *challenges** to broad stakeholder engagement* *are: **a. ICANN
> centricity resulting in lack of relevance, **b) Staff centred strategy,* *c)
> unsuitable materials and language, **d) a lack of understanding
> volunteers realities and needs.** To overcome the barriers** we need to
> reverse the roles between ICANN staff and ICANN’s constituency
> organizations.** we need to create relevance of internet governance for
> all users through the creation of win/win situations. This can be achieved
> if we make **the DNS the focus** of outreach not ICANN as a organization.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * To get the process started we need a communications plan that is focused
> on process and outcomes. There is much to do and much to discuss with the
> board. Happy to provide more information on this and ask the question at
> the event. Yours Klaus *
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/29/2016 5:19 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 02/29/2016 08:38 AM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>
> Dear Friends
>
> I think Milton is spot on with this:
>
> On 2/28/2016 10:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Tapani
> As a veteran of many of these sessions, I want us to avoid wasting time and just generating animosity.
> I would strongly encourage us to ask questions that:
> 	a)  are forward-looking, and give us an opportunity to shape agendas and perceptions on things that are not already finished
> 	b)  involve requests for things that the board or staff could actually deliver for us
>
> Any ideas about that?
>
> For this reason I would like to propose a question on if the Board
> agrees on the need for greater "Awareness and Capacity Building for
> Broader and Deeper Engagement in ICANN Policy and for a Secure and
> Stable DNS", and if yes, what are the parameters under which this should
> be implemented.
>
>
> Isn't this ecactly what the civil society engagement strategy is for? I
> think that's exactly what the board will answer as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
> E.g., is there are request we can make regarding the RDS (Whois) process that would position us better?
> Are there any requests regarding the implementation process for the CCWG recommendations that will help us make sure things don't go off track? Are there any committees that we can ask to be on?
> Can we ask them about the impending GNSO review and whether they agreed with our assessment of the biased Westlake report? Things of that sort
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
> Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 6:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Questions to the Board?
>
> Dear all,
>
> One regular event at ICANN meetings is that we get to meet the Board, talk
> with them about and ask them whatever we want.
>
> The Board would, however, like to know in advance what we're going to ask
> them, so they could better prepare for it.
>
> If you have suggestions for topics for our meeting with the Board in
> Marrakech, please let me know as soon as possible (feel free to post to the list
> or me directly, as you prefer).
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> .
>
>
>
>


-- 
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org