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@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
