June 2018 - comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18@icann.org

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Comment from Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix
by Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix June 23, 2018

June 23, 2018

Dear Public Responsibility Support team, I do understand that the purpose of the fellowship programme is to ensure durable participation and engagement from "new" (relatively speaking) individuals. In that sense, an evaluation of the fellowship programme and of the possibilities for improvement cannot happen in a vacuum, detached from a reflection on how to engage with persons not entirely familiar with the ICANN environment, generally speaking. If fellows disengage after their first meeting, it is either because they were not actually interested in ICANN's activities (and so were most likely not selected properly) or because they were put off by obstacles to further participation. In that sense, while I recognise the value of gaining some quantitative data on fellows' engagement, I do not favour an approach which would seek to coerce them into further participation. It is extremely important to know why fellows choose to not engage further, but I consider it is wasted resources to "force" fellows to attend a certain number of calls of a given working group or to write every so often on a mailing list or blogs. My personal experience tells me that there certainly exists several obstacles to further engagement which have to do with the highly complex internal structure of ICANN and the concept of "constituencies" and "affiliation." While the fellowship programme will seemingly seek to select individuals who are already somewhat active (hence there is an assumption of familiarity with the aforementioned structure) I still consider it too easy to lose track of what is going on in the community generally speaking and *where *in the whole flowchart of SO/ACs it is happening, as well as how each of those constituencies internally organise "engagement" and "participation" This is something that needs to be addressed and it deserves a thorough reflection. I consider it a form of discrimination, less visible than that of geographical origin, cultures or gender, but no less present and pernicious. In addition, my intuition tells me that such a discrimination does affect certain geographical groups, cultures and genders more than others, but I do not have data to back that up... In addition, I do support other comments posted up to now which seek to underline the necessity to rethink what "diversity" entails. Thank you for your consideration, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] My contribution to the question of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Mark W. Datysgeld June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

I am Mark W. Datysgeld, a researcher and consultant from Brazil, specialized in public and private policymaking, and affiliated with the Business Constituency (BC). I have attended ICANN starting as a NextGen in meeting 53, then also attended as a Fellow, having ever since followed a path towards a mostly self-sustaining participation in the community. I currently serve on the selection committee for the NextGen program, as well as always aiming to coach those selected by that program to the best of my abilities. I write this comment under my personal capacity. The question that I would like to address in this comment is that of "Selection Criteria", which has been quite a cryptic matter in the past, and as it framed in the current proposal, continues to be so. A fundamental question is not being answered in point number 3 of “Revise Selection Criteria”, which reads “Prioritize diversity of applicant pool”, in which there is no definition for what diversity is. Let us move away from handling this matter as a philosophical question, and get to the point that there needs to be a clear definition of what diversity entails for the Fellowship program. Traditionally, diversity has fundamentally followed two criteria: gender and geography. If the selected group of fellows is comprised of an even number of males and females and they come from different countries, the community calls it a day and considers the group to be diverse. Stakeholder diversity comes at a distant third, working largely on a “nice if we can get it” basis. I affirm this supported by the report concerning the 10 years of the program that was presented as a complement to the “Community Consultation Process to Review Current Fellowship Program”, from 2017. When looking at the sectorial breakdown of the fellows, Private sector has the second to last number of Fellows, with 1/3 of the number of fellows from Civil society, which has so far been the most represented stakeholder group. Now, as we do not have a disclosure mechanism that details how many potential fellows from the Private sector applied to begin with, we cannot say why that is. It could be that consistently a small volume of applications from that stakeholder group is received, but it could just as well be that there is a bias against selecting members of the Private sector out of a sense of “fairness” in relation to Civil society. This has certainly been a topic of discussion during different formal and informal deliberations, including during the previous consultation carried out concerning the Fellowship program. There seems to be a loose perception that “businesses can afford it”, so they should not receive the same amount of support as others. This does not, however, reflect any sort of reality beyond a superficial analysis of who a business stakeholder in ICANN is. Within the BC, we have a healthy mix of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and technology giants, and both get a say in the policymaking process, and there is ample respect for achieving an opinion as a group, regardless of company size. It is fallacious to assume that a business actor necessarily has more means to attend a meeting than a member of Civil society. A member of Civil society supported by a strong NGO or receiving compensations from a university might have just as much disposable cash as a small entrepreneur. I speak that from experience, as in my career I have attempt to combine my academic endeavors with my passion for sustainable businesses. If it is the case that not enough Private sector stakeholders apply for the Fellowship, then the question becomes: why? If there is true commitment to diversity, shouldn’t this matter be taken as a more serious question? It could simply be that not enough effort is made to reach these actors and communicate the advantages of the program to them. I do tend to believe more strongly on the first scenario I presented, though, in which there is a perception that these actors do not require financing. Apart from stakeholder diversity, I also hold other concerns that I have been trying to address when I find it possible to. One point that stands out strongly to me is the matter of interregional diversity. The program considers its diversity mission complete if it selects somebody from a country that is classified as underserved, but there is an underlying question there that is never addressed, which is whether diversity is being addressed at an individual national level. While for smaller countries this might arguably carry less importance, in countries with a large landmass, it is often the case that very different groups are represented under one nation’s flag. I do not mean this in the sense of the inclusion of indigenous people as is performed by the “Global Indigenous Ambassador Program”, either. For example, Brazil has currently two very distinct major poles of technology development, one in the South-Southeast and another in the Northeast. To guarantee that both of these poles are properly represented is a mission I tried to be mindful of as a selection committee member for the Panamá round. I know for a fact that this kind of situation is replicated across the world. What I mean to say is: if there are several candidates from Russia, isn’t it important to consider splitting the share between Moscow and St. Petersburg to a certain degree, if the selection pool allows for it? Couldn’t the same be said for several other nations such as India and the United States of America, for example? This is relevant. The potential for fellows to engage when they return to their home countries should be maximized geographically in situations in which that is relevant. Too much cynicism has creeped into defining what diversity is, and the community has stagnated in terms of considering what further meaning a real commitment towards that carries. I propose that more significant consideration be given to what this criterion means, with the knowledge that there is already discussion going on in WS2 regarding diversity, with the BC contributing to that with some points that resonate with the ones presented here, on a draft that I co-authored. [https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2018/2018_01janua…] I propose that, as a community, we move forward with the intention of making ICANN diverse in a real sense, aiming to enhance and promote a progressively more global community with an actual variety of points of view that extends beyond what is immediately observable, so that we progress from just ticking boxes, and really fulfill the goal of inclusion within this international mechanism. Mark W. Datysgeld [www.markwd.website] 2018, June 21

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Public comment fellowship
by diep kong June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

I was a first time fellowship for ICANN60 and now second time fellowship for ICANN62. I would like have some of my comment to the draft new fellowship program. 1. The fellowship program should provide more priority for the fellow from same region that ICANN meeting will take place. So the underserve economy in the region has more chance to join ICANN meeting. 2. I would like to suggest that ICANN should provide additional detail information for applicant in the fellowship criterial, so the applicant can learn more on which part they will be interested and going to join. The applicant would not understand well on how ICANN works and how to engage with SO/AC/SG/C. Regards, Kong

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
by Alfredo Calderon June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

To whom it may concern: After reviewing the comments on proposed changes or comments as a Fellow, now Alumni I believe: 1. The fellowship Program must have a clear definition of who can apply, hence, selection criteria. It does not seem clear the difference between Next@Gen (besides the age criteria, and the University criteria). 2. The link between Next@Gen and Fellowship Program. It is feasible that an individual can start as a Next@Gen and continue as a Fellowship Program participant, without clear importance of the previous contact with ICANN and its’ contituentcies. It would be helpful to have metrics on how this contributes (if it does) to enhance involvement in ICANN OSs/ACs. 3. ICANN Learn Courses. As a former Fellow and now Alumni, it seems than the online courses need to include a more detailed exploration of individuals interests. I would suggest: a) quizzes have questions where individuals need to resolve some form of case study, b) some questions should be more focused on expressing opinions, instead of knowing facts, c) mechanism to have questions scrambled once taken and not performed as expected. Thus, allowing participant to review theory/section and expect ‘new’ questions. 4. I believe that the number of participants per ICANN Meeting should be evaluated. This due to the fact that the lack of metrics seems to indicate if the size is adequate and the ROI is reasonable. One would expect that approximately 50% of Fellows would be involved in WG after participating in an ICANN Meeting. I would recommend a three meeting evaluation (with metrics) of reducing the number of participants to 45. This would be accompanied by a more detailed selection criteria. 5. Diversity/Underrepresentation. This is a crucial aspect of the selection process. To me it seems important that among the criteria this must be considered. I would suggest that some cultural elements be considered, on the basis of additional value some participants might bring to a meeting (as a Coach). 6. Language barrier. The language barrier has not been mentioned as a limitation. Although WGs and ICANN Meeting have translation this seems to be a compelling factor for some individuals interested in participating in the Fellowship Program. [image: photo] *Alfredo Calderon* eLearning Consultant calderon.alfredo(a)gmail.com http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com | Skype: Alfredo_1212 <#> | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon <http://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo> <http://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> <http://twitter.com/acalderon52> <http://plus.google.com/u/0/103289446075444313762/posts> <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/> <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon> <http://klout.com/#/acalderon52> <http://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon> Get your own email signature <https://www.wisestamp.com?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_cam…>

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Michael J. Oghia comment
by Michael J. Oghia June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

I am a two-time ICANN fellow and a one-time Fellowship coach. As someone who offered feedback at ICANN60 in person as well as during the call for feedback leading up to this call, I am very pleased with how the feedback was recieved and implemented. I think the new policy outlined in the "Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach" adequately addresses all the key points of change needed for the Fellowship Program. I also appreciate the "Draft Summary of Findings from the Community Consultation to Review the Current Fellowship Program." I think it also captured the community's feedback, and I only had two comments: 1. I do think the program would benefit from a size reduction (i.e., the number of fellows selected for each meeting). This would also make the selection process more competitive. 2. I encourage everyone interested in becoming a fellow or simply getting involved in ICANN to join mailing lists for as much as year before attending the first ICANN meeting (as I did, for instance). This helps establish context, familiarity, and the pertinent topics of discussion (as well with the politics surrounding them). Thank you, -Michael J. Oghia Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG | GNSO) Middle East and Adjoining Countries Strategy Working Group (MEAC-SWG | ALAC)

1 0