Good Day, I was informed on the call by Marylin that there was a document she circulated to the BC on her proposal. I must have missed that as my spam mail didn't also catch it. Could a copy be recirculated please. I respectfully maintain that the process used for this particular selection is flawed and not transparent - So it isn't acceptable and kindly request that it should be remedied. As Jimson noted in his response, and I quote "Interested Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) -

...

or their relevant stakeholder groups (SGs) - should nominate two representatives: one individual shall serve in the role of mentor and the other in the role of mentee. "

Here the call by ICANN is clear and unambiguous as it was directed to the BC as to other constituencies. We as the BC were then expected to cause an internal announcement and from interested parties a selection made. There was no such announcement within the BC but selections were made. I still await Excomm's justification or a reversal in good time as this is time bound. So as there wasn't any discussion on the process leading to the selection on the full BC list, I am very much intrested in the process and discussions the Excomm engaged in before arriving at the decision announced. It would also help to reassure on how transparent the process was. Looking forward to hearing others on Excomm speak to this also. Lawrence.

On 3 Jan 2018, at 11:48 AM, Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts <icann@microboss.org> wrote:

Thank you for your response Jimson,

When ICANN org sets out a new program that draws on its budget, it is held accountable by the community. It is for this reason that a call was issued by ICANN as there have been accusations to the fact that nominations were not transparent nor reflected the desire of the community.

ICANN's call made it clear they were going to accept nominations only from SO's and AC's so the onus was on the BC to make a call internally, if it wasn't going to consult with those of us on the program to guide the process.

As one of the 3 BC participants on this program, these expectations are clear about the program:

1, That the Onboarding program is designed to help with volunteer burnout and cause new members of the community to contribute to a process where more volunteers can be absorbed into the different ICANN constituencies.

2, It is to Help design ways by which new members of the constituencies interested in leadership could be developed into such role; hence the mentoring track which required that the role on the program should revolve as that was the only way old members would give space for new members, allowing for more new members to be onboarded.

3, That constituencies leverage on resources available to it to make paths to membership and growth within our constituencies known and easier for onboarding of new volunteers.

While ICANN has played its role by initiating this call, how has the BC played its own role in the selection process. By default the mentorship role was to be a selection between myself and Omar?

I am challenging BC's Excomms decision for the following reasons;

1, BC's nomination does not conform with the expectation of the Onboarding program of evolving and supporting new members into leadership. Veterans who have played such key roles should test the output of their mentorship by stepping back to allow new volunteers step in.

2, The BC should deviate from appearing as one constituency that could prove right the issues the onboarding program was created to address within ICANN in the first place.

3, There is a dire need for a balance in Diversity

The BC has a pool of great talents that could mentor newcomers in our constituency, and their work within the BC should be acknowledged. We may want to even consider floating our own mentorship program or redesigning the concept of our leadership program to inculcate mentorship, but i urge that the excomm revisit its nominations in order to prove its trust in the capability of new members and help keep this within the BC.

Lawrence.

...

On Wed, January 3, 2018 9:13 am, Jimson Olufuye wrote: Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your mail.

Of the 2 nominees for the role of a mentor, it was Excomm's consensus decision that given Marilyn's long standing commitment and success in members' recruitment and mentoring that she was endorsed to continue in the role as a mentor on the ICANN Community Onboarding Pilot programme.

There was no consideration for any exception as the unanimous decision was based on ICANN guideline available here. Part of it is quoted below:

Interested Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) - or their relevant stakeholder groups (SGs) - should nominate two representatives: one individual shall serve in the role of mentor and the other in the role of mentee. The program defines a mentor as an experienced member of the community best suited to share knowledge of and experience in ICANN. A mentee is defined as a relatively new member of the community who has demonstrated both the potential and desire to actively engage and participate in ICANN's advice and policymaking activities." Thank you for your continuous interest in serving the BC.

Regards,

Jimson Olufuye

Vice-Chair, Finance & Operations

--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [Bc-outreach] Excomm Justification Requested on ICANN Community Onboarding Pilot From: "Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts" <icann@microboss.org> Date: 1/1/18 6:37 pm To: Bc-excomm@icann.org Cc: "BC Private" <bc-private@icann.org>, bc-outreach@icann.org

Dear Ex-Comm,

Compliments of the season and I pray the new year ushers in all the goodness our heart desires.

On the last BC call held on the 14th of December 2017, Ex-comm's decision on the BC nominees to the ICANN Community Onboarding Program was announced. It is my belief that Excomm arrived at its decision with an exception applied for its choice of who plays the choice of Mentor for the program.

The Onboarding program for which myself and Omar were mentees and Marylin our mentor was designed to help produce materials that could help new volunteers easily integrate into our constituency and document same on mediums such as ICAAN Learn, asides working with our outreach committee to attract more volunteers into the BC. More on the program can be found here; https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/64082880

Before FY17, the program administrators who are ICANN staff, introduced into the mentorship program a system where the Mentor would exit the program and allow for a mentee to become the mentor and a new member from our respective constituency onboarded into the program as mentee to allow for continuity. Note that this new mentee would have leadership potentials to become the mentor in the next ICANN Financial year. On the strength of this, the ccNSO, GAC, ISPCP amongst others have had mentees move on to become mentors. Here the BC Excomm's decision sets a new precedence for the ICANN Community Onboarding Program by causing the exit of its mentees and retaining the mentor and not taking diversity into consideration.

Invariably, the BC's choice of the Mentor should have been between Omar and myself as the current mentees on the program. Hence I seek to know the exception Excomm used to arrive at its decision and how this was voted on at its meeting, otherwise I request that I be considered for the mentorship role on the Onboarding program to conform with ICANN's standard form the community.

Lawrence.

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