I made a few additions to Gabi's. BUT they are all within the Outreach committee and Excomm purview -- I think. So many thanks again to Susan for advancing that we were sort of missing in action. Now, thanks to Susan and Steve we are not. ________________________________ From: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 3:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: Marilyn Cade; BC Outreach; bc-excomm@icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-outreach] [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments Thanks Marilyn for this hard and so detailed work!! Please find attached my comments, some typo corrections and a few things to add. Please feel free to rewrite or modify, particularly if any of the comments I added affect the process Steve said could work to submit without full BC review, as there is not time for this. Thanks, Gabi Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2017-12-02 15:24 GMT-03:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Marilyn’s draft is very substantive and I support the points she’s made. I should think the Outreach Committee could easily review and edit over the weekend, so we can submit on Monday 4-Dec. ICANN staff told us that is the absolute latest date we can submit. This response does not involve BC policy positions, so I believe the ExCom can approve without full member review. Once we submit, we will send to full BC list. Thanks for getting this done over the weekend. From: Bc-excomm <bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:07 AM To: BC Outreach <bc-outreach@icann.org<mailto:bc-outreach@icann.org>> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>> Subject: [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments i apologise for the delayed DRAFT. I offer the following, which is quite detailed, but I hope can gain support from the Outreach committee. I had not seen the original request to the council, and appreciate that Susan called it to our attention. My comments are subject to your edits, of course. I suggest, subject to Steve’s guidance, that we say this is preliminary and then we can edit according to your input I promised a draft by today. Here it is. I know we are really late, and if we can just get the Outreach committee comments, we can submit as draft. if Steve and Susan can advise. _______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org<mailto:Bc-outreach@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbc-outreach&data=02%7C01%7Cmarilynscade%40hotmail.com%7C9cb54751360840fc433008d539c0ba11%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636478423005470826&sdata=fmj41iT7LpQPXVGpFKWQqYqv0gJwEkAtEOUE2nm24zg%3D&reserved=0>

I think this is a great document. Thank you, Marilyn. I also added some points, tracked for your review, please check. Regards, Omar

On Dec 3, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I will now await others comments and then send a revised approach Monday am. So many apologies for this being over your week end.

M

From: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 3:10 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: Marilyn Cade; BC Outreach; bc-excomm@icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-outreach] [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments

Thanks Marilyn for this hard and so detailed work!!

Please find attached my comments, some typo corrections and a few things to add. Please feel free to rewrite or modify, particularly if any of the comments I added affect the process Steve said could work to submit without full BC review, as there is not time for this.

Thanks, Gabi

Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2017-12-02 15:24 GMT-03:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>: Marilyn’s draft is very substantive and I support the points she’s made.

I should think the Outreach Committee could easily review and edit over the weekend, so we can submit on Monday 4-Dec. ICANN staff told us that is the absolute latest date we can submit.

This response does not involve BC policy positions, so I believe the ExCom can approve without full member review. Once we submit, we will send to full BC list.

Thanks for getting this done over the weekend.

From: Bc-excomm <bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:07 AM To: BC Outreach <bc-outreach@icann.org <mailto:bc-outreach@icann.org>> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@icann.org <mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>> Subject: [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments

i apologise for the delayed DRAFT. I offer the following, which is quite detailed, but I hope can gain support from the Outreach committee. I had not seen the original request to the council, and appreciate that Susan called it to our attention.

My comments are subject to your edits, of course.

I suggest, subject to Steve’s guidance, that we say this is preliminary and then we can edit according to your input

I promised a draft by today. Here it is.

I know we are really late, and if we can just get the Outreach committee comments, we can submit as draft. if Steve and Susan can advise.

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org <mailto:Bc-outreach@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach

Tola, Thanks so much for your comments. I will answer below between your lines in blue. *Gabriela Szlak * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2017-12-03 3:39 GMT-03:00 'Tola Sogbesan <tola@chacesystems.com>:

Omar and Gabi,

This is an impressive edit you added as direct participants of the Fellowship Program.

I just want to have some clarification as a quality control before we push this document out.

1. I have been selected once as a Fellow and Twice as a Coach, so I wasn’t wondering if the assertion of not being selected twice once you join the BC would be taken as a Standard.

​At the time I participated in the program the "COACH" concept was not yet developed. So I never participated as a COACH. At my time a fellow was elegible 3 times as a fellow/alumn, only if that person joined any constituency at least during the second time of receiving funding and that person was expected to participate in the meeting as a member of the community and was less expected to join every fellowship activity. I joined the BC in my second fellowship . Then, I applied at least two more times and was not elected even though I was already an active member of the community. Because I was not being selected directly through the Fellowship Selection Committee (and this was because I was a BC members, as far as I got to check informally) but I was considered a "case of succes" for the Program, I received funding two more times BUT through the "newcomers program", once for Prague and once for Toronto. In the first experience (Prague) everything was great as I was assigned to the "newcomers booth" but under Janice guidance (she was the one helping me to keep being funded, I guess) and she was clear that my priority was to put first my BC sessions and work in the booth all the rest of the time. It was hard to keep up with everything but such a great and learning experience. I shared the booth with some ICANN employees and also with another Fellow from Rumania, in order to be able to prioritize the BC sessions. In Toronto though, something internally changed and Janice was not in charge anymore of the newcomers program at that meeting. The booth only had one ICANN employee assigned and myself. We were both expected to be there *all the time* through Wednesday. This experience was under Filiz´s orders (a person that does not work for ICANN anymore) and was not really a good one, as Filiz had no intention of puting my work as a community member in the first place, and was clear about that and bossy in a way that I did not expect. I ended up participating in some BC sessions remotely even though I was there in person and even though the booth was mostly empty. So, after this I dedided I was not going to accept this kind of funding anymore as it did not match my interests and it was incompatible with my work at the BC. ​

2. To buttress your point, I equally received a request that my help is needed by joining the Coaching team for ICANN 61 BUT only if the BC can support my travels. Does this give weight to the fact that the BC is expected to take up the responsibility of supports such new recruits through the Fellowship Program?

​Could you please describe the "Coaching Role" for me to understand better? What work are the coaches expected to do? I am not sure the BC has the funding to support your travels, but you probably might be able to ask for CROP funding for this. Can anyone clarify? ​

3. In my short time of studying the Fellowship issues, I reckon, the bickering seems to always be that the BC is CAPITALISM, whereas others like NCUC, ALAC, GAC, etc are supposedly Anti-CAPITALISM. To that extent, there would hardly be resolve, because of the opposing guiding principles.

​This is the same perception I have, the comments around my case were kind of: if she says she is business, why does she need funding at all? ​

Since I am new in the Outreach team, there isn’t much yet for me to say on that front but I align with the fact that Outreach guiding documents could adopt an internal on-boariding system IN ADDITION To that of ICANN MENTOR-MENTEE for new SME members particularly from less served regions either through the Fellowship or directly,

Many thanks to Marilyn for setting the tone.

​Thanks a lot for your input and comments! ​

Cheers,

TS

On 3 Dec 2017, at 01:37, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af> wrote:

<ICANN - Community Travel Support Guidelines - Questionnaire from ICANN - w comments by Gabi_Omar.docx>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President

Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach

Hi Tola, Adding to Gabi’s, I also applied twice after my first fellowship at ICANN51/LA. Although I joined BC immediately after that, but I was not accepted for the 2nd time application, for the 3rd time I was put in the waiting list (someone from an NGO dropped last minute, but then there was no time to arrange logistics). Then I never applied again. In the result, there was a couple of years disconnect, until I came as a community on boarding at 57/ Hyderabad (thanks to Marilyn and Janice and the BC leadership of course). I had the honour of being taken as a community mentor in the last 2 meetings (funded through the on-boarding program through), where i coached newcomers coming through the fellowship program. I am not sure how “business” from other regions are treated, but for Afghanistan I am the only one, through the history of the fellowship program, who came (and that only once) from business. There were two from government in the distant past, both members of the GAC, who were chosen as fellows, one time, and then since ICANN51, it is only civil society that is able to make it through the fellowship program, and to be honest, it is only one group— for ICANN60, Afghanistan had the second largest applications (19)— after Tunisia, only one from CS was picked. We did some analysis on business fellows, which are reflected in the document (btw- “business” by the fellowship program is referred to all CSG constituencies)- There were only 4 people from the commercial SG (not BC alone, and that includes you) who were privileged to come 3 times: Adetola from Nigeria (ICANN55, 58, 59), Mamadou from Senegal (49, 53, 59), Roger from Ghana (50, 51, 59), Julian from Argentina/ ISPC (51, 53, 56), and only 6 people who came 2 times: Bram from Malawi (49, 54), Bionda from Aruba (51, 53), Paul from Kenya/ also At-Large (47, 50), Timur from Tajikistan/ Registry (38, 50), Hassan from Pakistan (46, 48), Fedar from Russia (44, 45). Others never had a chance to return. But that’s not the biggest concern, our major concern should be that how the program insures the applicants are really from “business,” and if these applicants own or run a business or have long term commitment with a business that could, potentially, become a BC member. BC has been disadvantaged because, I assume, anyone can introduce themselves as “business,” take the seat, and later on join another SG/ constituency, or disappear. Lastly, our recommendations are and should be for good, of the fellowship program [although the tone in some parts of the document sounded a little very strong (which can be edited, and I recommend doing so)]. It is about helping the Fellowship Program, by helping it ensure transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. BC need to equally benefit from programs like the Fellowship, however, and we all know that being “business” doesn’t necessarily mean you are rich and don’t need travel support. I know some NGO folks whose monthly salary equates to the total annual income of a small business.

On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com> wrote:

Tola, Thanks so much for your comments.

I will answer below between your lines in blue.

Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2017-12-03 3:39 GMT-03:00 'Tola Sogbesan <tola@chacesystems.com <mailto:tola@chacesystems.com>>: Omar and Gabi,

This is an impressive edit you added as direct participants of the Fellowship Program.

I just want to have some clarification as a quality control before we push this document out.

1. I have been selected once as a Fellow and Twice as a Coach, so I wasn’t wondering if the assertion of not being selected twice once you join the BC would be taken as a Standard.

​At the time I participated in the program the "COACH" concept was not yet developed. So I never participated as a COACH. At my time a fellow was elegible 3 times as a fellow/alumn, only if that person joined any constituency at least during the second time of receiving funding and that person was expected to participate in the meeting as a member of the community and was less expected to join every fellowship activity. I joined the BC in my second fellowship . Then, I applied at least two more times and was not elected even though I was already an active member of the community.

Because I was not being selected directly through the Fellowship Selection Committee (and this was because I was a BC members, as far as I got to check informally) but I was considered a "case of succes" for the Program, I received funding two more times BUT through the "newcomers program", once for Prague and once for Toronto.

In the first experience (Prague) everything was great as I was assigned to the "newcomers booth" but under Janice guidance (she was the one helping me to keep being funded, I guess) and she was clear that my priority was to put first my BC sessions and work in the booth all the rest of the time. It was hard to keep up with everything but such a great and learning experience. I shared the booth with some ICANN employees and also with another Fellow from Rumania, in order to be able to prioritize the BC sessions.

In Toronto though, something internally changed and Janice was not in charge anymore of the newcomers program at that meeting. The booth only had one ICANN employee assigned and myself. We were both expected to be there all the time through Wednesday. This experience was under Filiz´s orders (a person that does not work for ICANN anymore) and was not really a good one, as Filiz had no intention of puting my work as a community member in the first place, and was clear about that and bossy in a way that I did not expect. I ended up participating in some BC sessions remotely even though I was there in person and even though the booth was mostly empty.

So, after this I dedided I was not going to accept this kind of funding anymore as it did not match my interests and it was incompatible with my work at the BC. ​

2. To buttress your point, I equally received a request that my help is needed by joining the Coaching team for ICANN 61 BUT only if the BC can support my travels. Does this give weight to the fact that the BC is expected to take up the responsibility of supports such new recruits through the Fellowship Program?

​Could you please describe the "Coaching Role" for me to understand better? What work are the coaches expected to do? I am not sure the BC has the funding to support your travels, but you probably might be able to ask for CROP funding for this. Can anyone clarify? ​ 3. In my short time of studying the Fellowship issues, I reckon, the bickering seems to always be that the BC is CAPITALISM, whereas others like NCUC, ALAC, GAC, etc are supposedly Anti-CAPITALISM. To that extent, there would hardly be resolve, because of the opposing guiding principles.

​This is the same perception I have, the comments around my case were kind of: if she says she is business, why does she need funding at all? ​

Since I am new in the Outreach team, there isn’t much yet for me to say on that front but I align with the fact that Outreach guiding documents could adopt an internal on-boariding system IN ADDITION To that of ICANN MENTOR-MENTEE for new SME members particularly from less served regions either through the Fellowship or directly,

Many thanks to Marilyn for setting the tone.

​Thanks a lot for your input and comments! ​ Cheers,

TS

...

On 3 Dec 2017, at 01:37, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af <mailto:oansari@technation.af>> wrote:

<ICANN - Community Travel Support Guidelines - Questionnaire from ICANN - w comments by Gabi_Omar.docx>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President

<PastedGraphic-5.png> Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com <http://www.chacesystems.com/> M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org <mailto:Bc-outreach@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach>

Omar, that was a great analysis. By the way, Bram was at ICANN 60, that makes it three… Beyond that though, a critical point we need not overlook is the categories of applicants for each fellowship rounds. For example, an applicant may get lucky not to have much diversity, gender and ‘proper application’ affect Constituency for a particular round, because S/He is the only one at the time. Incidentally, applicants favor hosting Countries over the other and as a result, you could have a particular Country having a very large application, especially again, from some regions where citizens fancy visit to other sides to theirs. By the next round, however, there could be more people and the Selection Committee will need to balance appropriately, taking into considerations that hosting region takes larger percentage of winners. My submission is to recommend that OC design specific BC On-boarding program that can serve in two ways: 1. Help strengthen the Fellowship Program 2. Help recruit members into the BC. Thanks and Cheers, TS

On 3 Dec 2017, at 16:14, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af> wrote:

Hi Tola,

Adding to Gabi’s, I also applied twice after my first fellowship at ICANN51/LA. Although I joined BC immediately after that, but I was not accepted for the 2nd time application, for the 3rd time I was put in the waiting list (someone from an NGO dropped last minute, but then there was no time to arrange logistics). Then I never applied again. In the result, there was a couple of years disconnect, until I came as a community on boarding at 57/ Hyderabad (thanks to Marilyn and Janice and the BC leadership of course). I had the honour of being taken as a community mentor in the last 2 meetings (funded through the on-boarding program through), where i coached newcomers coming through the fellowship program.

I am not sure how “business” from other regions are treated, but for Afghanistan I am the only one, through the history of the fellowship program, who came (and that only once) from business. There were two from government in the distant past, both members of the GAC, who were chosen as fellows, one time, and then since ICANN51, it is only civil society that is able to make it through the fellowship program, and to be honest, it is only one group— for ICANN60, Afghanistan had the second largest applications (19)— after Tunisia, only one from CS was picked.

We did some analysis on business fellows, which are reflected in the document (btw- “business” by the fellowship program is referred to all CSG constituencies)- There were only 4 people from the commercial SG (not BC alone, and that includes you) who were privileged to come 3 times: Adetola from Nigeria (ICANN55, 58, 59), Mamadou from Senegal (49, 53, 59), Roger from Ghana (50, 51, 59), Julian from Argentina/ ISPC (51, 53, 56), and only 6 people who came 2 times: Bram from Malawi (49, 54), Bionda from Aruba (51, 53), Paul from Kenya/ also At-Large (47, 50), Timur from Tajikistan/ Registry (38, 50), Hassan from Pakistan (46, 48), Fedar from Russia (44, 45). Others never had a chance to return.

But that’s not the biggest concern, our major concern should be that how the program insures the applicants are really from “business,” and if these applicants own or run a business or have long term commitment with a business that could, potentially, become a BC member. BC has been disadvantaged because, I assume, anyone can introduce themselves as “business,” take the seat, and later on join another SG/ constituency, or disappear.

Lastly, our recommendations are and should be for good, of the fellowship program [although the tone in some parts of the document sounded a little very strong (which can be edited, and I recommend doing so)]. It is about helping the Fellowship Program, by helping it ensure transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. BC need to equally benefit from programs like the Fellowship, however, and we all know that being “business” doesn’t necessarily mean you are rich and don’t need travel support. I know some NGO folks whose monthly salary equates to the total annual income of a small business.

...

On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com <mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com>> wrote:

Tola, Thanks so much for your comments.

I will answer below between your lines in blue.

Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2017-12-03 3:39 GMT-03:00 'Tola Sogbesan <tola@chacesystems.com <mailto:tola@chacesystems.com>>: Omar and Gabi,

This is an impressive edit you added as direct participants of the Fellowship Program.

I just want to have some clarification as a quality control before we push this document out.

1. I have been selected once as a Fellow and Twice as a Coach, so I wasn’t wondering if the assertion of not being selected twice once you join the BC would be taken as a Standard.

​At the time I participated in the program the "COACH" concept was not yet developed. So I never participated as a COACH. At my time a fellow was elegible 3 times as a fellow/alumn, only if that person joined any constituency at least during the second time of receiving funding and that person was expected to participate in the meeting as a member of the community and was less expected to join every fellowship activity. I joined the BC in my second fellowship . Then, I applied at least two more times and was not elected even though I was already an active member of the community.

Because I was not being selected directly through the Fellowship Selection Committee (and this was because I was a BC members, as far as I got to check informally) but I was considered a "case of succes" for the Program, I received funding two more times BUT through the "newcomers program", once for Prague and once for Toronto.

In the first experience (Prague) everything was great as I was assigned to the "newcomers booth" but under Janice guidance (she was the one helping me to keep being funded, I guess) and she was clear that my priority was to put first my BC sessions and work in the booth all the rest of the time. It was hard to keep up with everything but such a great and learning experience. I shared the booth with some ICANN employees and also with another Fellow from Rumania, in order to be able to prioritize the BC sessions.

In Toronto though, something internally changed and Janice was not in charge anymore of the newcomers program at that meeting. The booth only had one ICANN employee assigned and myself. We were both expected to be there all the time through Wednesday. This experience was under Filiz´s orders (a person that does not work for ICANN anymore) and was not really a good one, as Filiz had no intention of puting my work as a community member in the first place, and was clear about that and bossy in a way that I did not expect. I ended up participating in some BC sessions remotely even though I was there in person and even though the booth was mostly empty.

So, after this I dedided I was not going to accept this kind of funding anymore as it did not match my interests and it was incompatible with my work at the BC. ​

2. To buttress your point, I equally received a request that my help is needed by joining the Coaching team for ICANN 61 BUT only if the BC can support my travels. Does this give weight to the fact that the BC is expected to take up the responsibility of supports such new recruits through the Fellowship Program?

​Could you please describe the "Coaching Role" for me to understand better? What work are the coaches expected to do? I am not sure the BC has the funding to support your travels, but you probably might be able to ask for CROP funding for this. Can anyone clarify? ​ 3. In my short time of studying the Fellowship issues, I reckon, the bickering seems to always be that the BC is CAPITALISM, whereas others like NCUC, ALAC, GAC, etc are supposedly Anti-CAPITALISM. To that extent, there would hardly be resolve, because of the opposing guiding principles.

​This is the same perception I have, the comments around my case were kind of: if she says she is business, why does she need funding at all? ​

Since I am new in the Outreach team, there isn’t much yet for me to say on that front but I align with the fact that Outreach guiding documents could adopt an internal on-boariding system IN ADDITION To that of ICANN MENTOR-MENTEE for new SME members particularly from less served regions either through the Fellowship or directly,

Many thanks to Marilyn for setting the tone.

​Thanks a lot for your input and comments! ​ Cheers,

TS

...

On 3 Dec 2017, at 01:37, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af <mailto:oansari@technation.af>> wrote:

<ICANN - Community Travel Support Guidelines - Questionnaire from ICANN - w comments by Gabi_Omar.docx>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President

<PastedGraphic-5.png> Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com <http://www.chacesystems.com/> M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org <mailto:Bc-outreach@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

+1

On 3 Dec 2017, at 20:52, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think that this analysis of the Fellowship Program deserves more work from the Outreach Committee, and especially we can benefit from the rough analysis that Omar and I did. I am providing an edited version of the submission that 1) incorporates Omar and Gabi and Tola's thoughts, and streamlines it, reduces some of the duplication and makes it clearer that we will have more detailed comments related to the review of the Fellowship program.

To confirm that the BC did benefit from having three participants in the Pilot Mentoring/Onboarding program, as that helped to alleviate that business user applications were not receiving needed support. We also have our own leadership recruitment program that we benefit from funding from ICANN for.

I propose that we "fix" and finish this submission today, and tomorrow, so it can be submitted.Then that the Outreach Committee members interested do the following during January: 1) ask for historical, factual information from any BC member who has come through the Fellowship, or NextGen Program 2) complete the analysis that Omar and I have undertaken 3) Plan for a concrete recommendation for how the Fellowship Program can augment and support the BC further 4) Discuss a small travel grants program to attend the ICANN meetings 5) evaluate the opportunity to support the mentoring/onboarding program with additional BC funding 6) Push through the additional fourth officer funding support as part of core budget

From: Bc-outreach <bc-outreach-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of 'Tola Sogbesan <tola@chacesystems.com> Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 10:43 AM To: Omar Mansoor Ansari Cc: Steve DelBianco; bc-excomm@icann.org; BC Outreach Subject: Re: [Bc-outreach] [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments

Omar, that was a great analysis.

By the way, Bram was at ICANN 60, that makes it three…

Beyond that though, a critical point we need not overlook is the categories of applicants for each fellowship rounds.

For example, an applicant may get lucky not to have much diversity, gender and ‘proper application’ affect Constituency for a particular round, because S/He is the only one at the time. Incidentally, applicants favor hosting Countries over the other and as a result, you could have a particular Country having a very large application, especially again, from some regions where citizens fancy visit to other sides to theirs.

By the next round, however, there could be more people and the Selection Committee will need to balance appropriately, taking into considerations that hosting region takes larger percentage of winners.

My submission is to recommend that OC design specific BC On-boarding program that can serve in two ways: 1. Help strengthen the Fellowship Program 2. Help recruit members into the BC.

Thanks and Cheers,

TS

...

On 3 Dec 2017, at 16:14, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af <mailto:oansari@technation.af>> wrote:

Hi Tola,

Adding to Gabi’s, I also applied twice after my first fellowship at ICANN51/LA. Although I joined BC immediately after that, but I was not accepted for the 2nd time application, for the 3rd time I was put in the waiting list (someone from an NGO dropped last minute, but then there was no time to arrange logistics). Then I never applied again. In the result, there was a couple of years disconnect, until I came as a community on boarding at 57/ Hyderabad (thanks to Marilyn and Janice and the BC leadership of course). I had the honour of being taken as a community mentor in the last 2 meetings (funded through the on-boarding program through), where i coached newcomers coming through the fellowship program.

I am not sure how “business” from other regions are treated, but for Afghanistan I am the only one, through the history of the fellowship program, who came (and that only once) from business. There were two from government in the distant past, both members of the GAC, who were chosen as fellows, one time, and then since ICANN51, it is only civil society that is able to make it through the fellowship program, and to be honest, it is only one group— for ICANN60, Afghanistan had the second largest applications (19)— after Tunisia, only one from CS was picked.

We did some analysis on business fellows, which are reflected in the document (btw- “business” by the fellowship program is referred to all CSG constituencies)- There were only 4 people from the commercial SG (not BC alone, and that includes you) who were privileged to come 3 times: Adetola from Nigeria (ICANN55, 58, 59), Mamadou from Senegal (49, 53, 59), Roger from Ghana (50, 51, 59), Julian from Argentina/ ISPC (51, 53, 56), and only 6 people who came 2 times: Bram from Malawi (49, 54), Bionda from Aruba (51, 53), Paul from Kenya/ also At-Large (47, 50), Timur from Tajikistan/ Registry (38, 50), Hassan from Pakistan (46, 48), Fedar from Russia (44, 45). Others never had a chance to return.

But that’s not the biggest concern, our major concern should be that how the program insures the applicants are really from “business,” and if these applicants own or run a business or have long term commitment with a business that could, potentially, become a BC member. BC has been disadvantaged because, I assume, anyone can introduce themselves as “business,” take the seat, and later on join another SG/ constituency, or disappear.

Lastly, our recommendations are and should be for good, of the fellowship program [although the tone in some parts of the document sounded a little very strong (which can be edited, and I recommend doing so)]. It is about helping the Fellowship Program, by helping it ensure transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. BC need to equally benefit from programs like the Fellowship, however, and we all know that being “business” doesn’t necessarily mean you are rich and don’t need travel support. I know some NGO folks whose monthly salary equates to the total annual income of a small business.

...

On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@gmail.com <mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com>> wrote:

Tola, Thanks so much for your comments.

I will answer below between your lines in blue.

Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2017-12-03 3:39 GMT-03:00 'Tola Sogbesan <tola@chacesystems.com <mailto:tola@chacesystems.com>>: Omar and Gabi,

This is an impressive edit you added as direct participants of the Fellowship Program.

I just want to have some clarification as a quality control before we push this document out.

1. I have been selected once as a Fellow and Twice as a Coach, so I wasn’t wondering if the assertion of not being selected twice once you join the BC would be taken as a Standard.

At the time I participated in the program the "COACH" concept was not yet developed. So I never participated as a COACH. At my time a fellow was elegible 3 times as a fellow/alumn, only if that person joined any constituency at least during the second time of receiving funding and that person was expected to participate in the meeting as a member of the community and was less expected to join every fellowship activity. I joined the BC in my second fellowship . Then, I applied at least two more times and was not elected even though I was already an active member of the community.

Because I was not being selected directly through the Fellowship Selection Committee (and this was because I was a BC members, as far as I got to check informally) but I was considered a "case of succes" for the Program, I received funding two more times BUT through the "newcomers program", once for Prague and once for Toronto.

In the first experience (Prague) everything was great as I was assigned to the "newcomers booth" but under Janice guidance (she was the one helping me to keep being funded, I guess) and she was clear that my priority was to put first my BC sessions and work in the booth all the rest of the time. It was hard to keep up with everything but such a great and learning experience. I shared the booth with some ICANN employees and also with another Fellow from Rumania, in order to be able to prioritize the BC sessions.

In Toronto though, something internally changed and Janice was not in charge anymore of the newcomers program at that meeting. The booth only had one ICANN employee assigned and myself. We were both expected to be there all the time through Wednesday. This experience was under Filiz´s orders (a person that does not work for ICANN anymore) and was not really a good one, as Filiz had no intention of puting my work as a community member in the first place, and was clear about that and bossy in a way that I did not expect. I ended up participating in some BC sessions remotely even though I was there in person and even though the booth was mostly empty.

So, after this I dedided I was not going to accept this kind of funding anymore as it did not match my interests and it was incompatible with my work at the BC.

2. To buttress your point, I equally received a request that my help is needed by joining the Coaching team for ICANN 61 BUT only if the BC can support my travels. Does this give weight to the fact that the BC is expected to take up the responsibility of supports such new recruits through the Fellowship Program?

Could you please describe the "Coaching Role" for me to understand better? What work are the coaches expected to do? I am not sure the BC has the funding to support your travels, but you probably might be able to ask for CROP funding for this. Can anyone clarify? 3. In my short time of studying the Fellowship issues, I reckon, the bickering seems to always be that the BC is CAPITALISM, whereas others like NCUC, ALAC, GAC, etc are supposedly Anti-CAPITALISM. To that extent, there would hardly be resolve, because of the opposing guiding principles.

This is the same perception I have, the comments around my case were kind of: if she says she is business, why does she need funding at all?

Since I am new in the Outreach team, there isn’t much yet for me to say on that front but I align with the fact that Outreach guiding documents could adopt an internal on-boariding system IN ADDITION To that of ICANN MENTOR-MENTEE for new SME members particularly from less served regions either through the Fellowship or directly,

Many thanks to Marilyn for setting the tone.

Thanks a lot for your input and comments! Cheers,

TS

...

On 3 Dec 2017, at 01:37, Omar Mansoor Ansari <oansari@technation.af <mailto:oansari@technation.af>> wrote:

<ICANN - Community Travel Support Guidelines - Questionnaire from ICANN - w comments by Gabi_Omar.docx>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President

<PastedGraphic-5.png> Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chacesy...> M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

_______________________________________________ Bc-outreach mailing list Bc-outreach@icann.org <mailto:Bc-outreach@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-outreach <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President

<PastedGraphic-5.png> Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chacesy...> M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

___________________ Adetola SOGBESAN, M.Sc. Inf. Sys. Mgt. (Liverpool) President Consulting |ICT4D | Internet Governance | Capacity Building www.chacesystems.com M: +234 802 290 4983|Twitter: @tolasogbesan|Skype: tola-act ___________________

Just in, and working on it: and thanks to Barbara and Steve... Comments from Gabi, Omar very helpful, and from Tola. I am moving things around, so we are avoiding duplication. Working on it now. In the course of doing this, and in the participation in the pilot onboarding/mentoring program, we have learned more about how poorly served the BC is by the Fellowship Program, but that is not the real purpose of this set of comments, so I am proposing that the Outreach Committee take up a separate more detailed input document [which would be used during the Fellowship Review], with special thanks to Omar for sharing an analysis of the ten years with me. We can't put all of that into this set of comments, but I hope that the ExComm will accept the concerns that are being raised, and agree that the Outreach Committee can put forward a more in depth analysis, which can perhaps be used by our officers/Councilors, and in the Budget Working Group. And, we will give you a final draft Monday am incorporating all comments received. Marilyn ________________________________ From: Barbara Wanner <bwanner@uscib.org> Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 9:35 AM To: Steve DelBianco; Marilyn Cade; BC Outreach Cc: bc-excomm@icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments Dear All, I reviewed the draft with Gabriela's edits, and have not further edits to propose. Thanks to Marilyn for drafting an in-depth and thoughtful response. Best regards, Barbara ________________________________ From: Bc-excomm <bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:24:34 PM To: Marilyn Cade; BC Outreach Cc: bc-excomm@icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments Marilyn’s draft is very substantive and I support the points she’s made. I should think the Outreach Committee could easily review and edit over the weekend, so we can submit on Monday 4-Dec. ICANN staff told us that is the absolute latest date we can submit. This response does not involve BC policy positions, so I believe the ExCom can approve without full member review. Once we submit, we will send to full BC list. Thanks for getting this done over the weekend. From: Bc-excomm <bc-excomm-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:07 AM To: BC Outreach <bc-outreach@icann.org> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm@icann.org> Subject: [Bc-excomm] DRAFT of responses/apologies to ask for 24 hour comments i apologise for the delayed DRAFT. I offer the following, which is quite detailed, but I hope can gain support from the Outreach committee. I had not seen the original request to the council, and appreciate that Susan called it to our attention. My comments are subject to your edits, of course. I suggest, subject to Steve’s guidance, that we say this is preliminary and then we can edit according to your input I promised a draft by today. Here it is. I know we are really late, and if we can just get the Outreach committee comments, we can submit as draft. if Steve and Susan can advise. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mimecas...>.