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]] 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
>>> .
>>>