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

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Public comment fellowship
by diep kong June 16, 2018

June 16, 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