Thanks a lot for your comments.
if we follow your logic it means that only those who are responsible for the fellowship and NextGen programs are able to comment on its effectiveness, although fellowship is supposed to be beneficial for the entire community and should be assessed by the community.
I asked on the GNSO call when the questionnaire was presented why it missed questions about the fellowship and NextGen (as these programs have a large share in the ICANN travel budget) and whether this would be added at the later stage. I was told that we can add our comments on this at the end of the questionnaire as general remarks.
I believe there are a lot of concerns about these programs. I see that we have no consensus as to whether we can comment on this, but I do think it's worth to raise these concerns and that we as a GNSO council are in a position to do so. This is what "general remarks" section is for, in my opinion.
So I am apparently with the drafting team and with Erika and Julf here that instead of deleting the paragraph about these programs, we might even add more there, e.g. highlight that they are not ICANN focused enough.
Warm regards,
Tanya