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

Re: [Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Comment Fellowship Proposal
by Glenn McKnight July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

Thank you Loris. Well crafted letter. Appreciation to all who commented. All the best G Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com http://toronto.ieee.ca/ IEEE Toronto SIGHT Chair glenn.mcknight(a)ieee.org skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 . On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:01 AM Loris Taylor <loristaylor1(a)icloud.com> wrote: > > Best, > > Loris Taylor > President & CEO > Native Public Media > www.nativepublicmedia.org > > > >

2 1

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] North America At-Large Regional Organization comment to the Fellowship Program
by Eduardo Diaz July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

The North America At-Large Regional Organization (NARALO) is submitting the following statement for the Fellowship Program to consider during its restructuring. *“NARALO encourage the existing ICANN Fellowship Program (IFP) to actively outreach to global indigenous communities and designate two fellowships to these communities from their IFP total allocation until such time as the original Global Indigenous Ambassador Program (GIAP) program is reinstated. These communities exist throughout the world. We believe that this abides to the wishes of ICANN to be inclusive and demonstrative that they include this sector of our society as part of the ICANN multi-stakeholder community.”* The statement had unanimous consensus in the region. NARALO membership consist of 23 At-Large Organizations and 22 Individual members. Eduardo Díaz NARALO Chair -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] MEAC-SWG Comments on Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Chokri Ben Romdhane July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

On Behalf of Middle East and Adjoining Countries Strategy Working Group <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59642230> , please find attached comments of the group members on Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach. Note: The group comments are in red and labeled with "MEAC-SWG Comments" Friendly Chokri Ben Romdhane IT Senior Analyst https://icannwiki.org/Chokri_Ben_Romdhane

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] ISOC comment: Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Mark Buell July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Hello, On behalf of the Internet Society, I am pleased to submit the attached comment on ICANN’s Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach. Thank you, Mark Buell Regional Bureau Director, North America Internet Society Follow us on Twitter! @isoc_na Skype: mark_at_isoc www.isoc.org

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Comment on Fellows selection criteria
by Tijani BEN JEMAA July 17, 2018

July 17, 2018

The original objective of the fellowship program was to permit to now participants from developing and least developed countries who wouldn’t be able to make it without the financial support of the fellowship program. So, the program excluded former active participants and people from developed countries. This seems to be changed since the fellows for Panama meeting included a former vice chair of the GAC, and the fellows for Barcelona meeting include 2 fellows from US, one from Russia and one from China. This means that ICANN is spending money to bring very experienced people, and people from the most developed countries. Is this the objective of the fellowship program. I noticed that the proposed fellowship approach didn’t include any word on the objective of the program. I believe that this is a missing part of the proposal that must be added. According to the above, I propose to change the fellows selection criteria in this way: Revise Selection Criteria 1. Review and revamp criteria for selection of applicants within the below framework points; individuals with desired skills that meet all other criteria to be given special consideration 2. Ensure that the applicant comes from an underserved region (UN list of developing and least developed countries) 3. Prioritize diversity of applicant pool 4. Limit the fellowship for each eligible applicant to a maximum of three-time 5. Ensure that the applicant is a newcomer (within the limit of 3 times as a fellow) 6. Work with relevant community groups to verify active engagement of returning fellows 7. Publish information on application numbers and selection criteria 8. Rank candidates according to point-based selection criteria 9. Host an information session at one ICANN meeting per year on selection committee criteria; revise criteria as needed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Peterking Quaye July 17, 2018

July 17, 2018

Selection committee: Verify proof of engagement provided by returning Fellow and also project photos and other activities evidence which will help in presenting the fellow replication or use of experience from event . Many structures and constituencies also are not well represented , with less attention given to applicant from civil society sector . Looking the number of Applications for fellowship each year , it is clear that alot of allocation need base on the event - eg. Policy Meet , General Meeting ,there should be variation in number of Less preference is given to applicants from least developing countries from my observation and it a proposal that for fair representation of issues that can to the floor , many challenges exist in Africa especially in the West of Africa compare to our European , or Latin American counterpart , but some fellow continue to return . Local outreach activities/capacity building activities should be included like many people who are fellow does not undertake as well as promote the ICANN brand and its works locally , at close of each event there should be a follow way to ensure they can have an activities or event for knowledge sharing ,base on application or practical session .

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Sarata Omane July 16, 2018

July 16, 2018

Application: First time fellows Identifying SO/AC/SG/C of interest may not be an easy task for someone who is new or has learned something about ICANN. As a first time fellow it was not easy for me. I had to observe some activities of the constituencies after some time. Going through the ICANN learn is a good initiative as I continue to take some of the courses. One face-to-face ICANN meeting and the online course is not enough for almost every newcomer to know his or her way around ICANN. More publicity should be done for the larger community and not only fellows to have easy access and know the existence of ICANN learn course. The course content should be user-friendly and one that will encourage people to complete the courses applied. SO/AC as mentors SO/AC should demonstrate skills and ability to mentor others. I have been to two Policy forum. My first onsite mentor, though very vocal when it comes to policy development and very experienced community member did not demonstrate the capability to mentor me. Our meeting onsite did not yield the needed results. I had support/guidelines from returning fellows. However, my second 2nd policy onsite mentor though very busy made time for us at breakfast. She is willing to groom us and will continue contact even after the meeting. Fellows who have gone through the process have the ability to blend well and explain procedures and involvement to new fellows. Mentors should not be limited to only SO/AC but to include former fellows who have some experience in the constituencies. Selection committee: Verify proof of engagement provided by returning Fellows. Local outreach activities/capacity building activities should be included. These might not be related to ICANN but can enhance once participation in ICANN activities. Meeting structure: Returning fellow: Apart from attending constituency specific sessions, returning fellows should be allowed to explore other constituencies that may be of interest to them as well and at least learn something different from the other constituencies.

1 0

[Comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18] Comment on Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach
by Michele Marius July 9, 2018

July 9, 2018

As a first-time Fellow at ICANN 62, and having reviewed the draft proposal, below are my observations and comments: Much of the draft proposal focused on the obligations of the Fellows, but little was said about the obligations of the Organisation and the Community in supporting the Fellowship programme. For example, at ICANN62, unlike other meetings, and from what I understand, the various constituencies would be scheduled to talk to Fellows about their group, the work they are doing, the issues they are tackling, etc. That did not happen at ICANN 62, and I still do not think I have a full appreciation of the work of all of the constituencies. Hence, it would be prudent for more careful attention to be paid to consistency (and quality) of the Fellowship programme being delivered, especially if the same obligations would be expected of Fellows regardless of the meeting they attend. Following from the previous point and my own experience, I am of the view that expecting first-time Fellows to know “the community group with which they plan to engage, their area(s) of interest in PDP and advice activities” may be a bit premature as part of the post-meeting expectations. I was not exposed to all of the community groups at the one meeting I attended, and more than once during the meeting I was advised that it would take about three meeting before a person gets a good grasp of all the work that is being done. So whilst I plan to continue to explore some of the community groups post-ICANN62, to try to figure out where affinities might lie, again, it seems a bit unfair to expect a first-time Fellow, in particular, to be able to have resolved that issue and respond in a meaningful and honest way. With regard to the selection criteria of applicants and the promotion of diversity, greater clarity and transparency is recommended. Once ICANN is clearer about what it is looking for (or hoping for) in fellowship recipients – not necessarily just to receive the fellowship, but also following the meeting – prospective applicants would be better guided as to their suitability, the level of commitment they ought to be prepared to make, and the longer-term context of their involvement with ICANN. Although the focus of this draft proposal is the Fellowship programme, it ought to be considered within the larger system of ICANN engagement with the public and potential applicants. Whilst I have no difficulty with one of the proposed requirements of the application process is to complete an introductory course on ICANN, I am of the view that greater promotion and visibility should be given to ICANN Learn platform on the ICANN website, so that a culture of website visitors being better grounded in ICANN is fostered. Having been exposed to three courses, and in my opinion, they were tedious to complete. I think that some of the courses could be made more fun, so people would actually want to complete them, and not necessarily solely because it is a fellowship application requirement. – END – -- Michele Marius Director Email: mmarius(a)ict-pulse.com Website: http://www.ict-pulse.com | http:www.projectcalls.com Twitter: @ictpulse Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ICTPulse LinkedIn: http://jm.linkedin.com/in/mariusms

1 0

[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