Hi all, please find attached the latest version of the comment. The edits from Stephanie were accepted and the mention of anecdotal evidence was removed by Marie comment. if there is no objection, I think the comment is ready to go. I also support Donna idea to have a small team to meet fellowship program managers and will be happy to join the team. Best Regards, Rafik 2018-04-07 6:36 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>:
Yes my apologies it was sloppily worded...it is a fact, but we know it not because we measured it, but anecdotally. Not all anecdotes are fake news (sorry I could not resist):-)
I would be happy to meet with the fellowship team and discuss, I agree that it is far from comfortable casting stones from afar. We are trying to help improve things.
Stephanie On 2018-04-06 12:40, Austin, Donna wrote:
Hi Marie, I believe you are correct that it is indeed a fact.
I also fully support Stephanie’s suggest edits. Stephanie also raises some really good points about attracting people with specific skills, I certainly agree that a couple of retired judges could be an interesting addition to the ICANN mix. Over time the NomCom has come to understand that Board members not only need to know about ICANN, but that the Board would be well-served by people with specific expertise not dissimilar from some that Stephanie suggests for the Fellowship program. I think it makes perfect sense to rethink the program and target specific expertise.
Given the considerable discussion this topic has generated on the Council list, I wonder if it would make sense for a small group of council volunteers with an interest in this topic to offer to meet with Sally, Siranush and Deborah to cover some of our concerns and see how we can assist in reshaping the program/s—as I believe that is part of the intent of this survey. I think there would be more value in doing this than just responding to the survey and casting stones from afar. I’d be willing to be part of this effort.
Thanks again to Rafik for working through the myriad of different opinions to come up with a good Council response.
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marie Pattullo *Sent:* Friday, April 06, 2018 4:06 AM *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response
Thanks to all for the work on this; one small point under Q2 – “We note, based on anecdotal evidence, that for example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program...” – it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact – no?
Best
Marie
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Friday, April 6, 2018 9:15 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response
I apologize for offering so many edits at this point in the process, I started out intending to merely fix a couple of gramaticals but was struck with our fundamental problem here: the need to be positive, as Donna pointed out, yet insist on some critical thinking and analysis about the program, as Ayden has stressed on a number of occasions. We agree we need metrics; I think we might wish to sharpen up the actual goals of the program as well but there is not a question there which really offers that opportunity to comment. Regular audits and program review seem to be required in my view, but it seemed a bit severe to say that.
I was struck by the absence of fellows in the working group meetings which I participated in in Puerto Rico. It seems that the fellows are meeting in separate rooms, away from the main stream of activity. This strikes me as odd. We should encourage greater immersion in our activities in my view, and provide mentorship. I have also proposed to Chris Mondini and his team that we really need a "Zoomer" stream in our outreach efforts (referring to a Canadian seniors magazine and range of activities targeted at active retirees) to attract folks with time available, and deeper experience that might be useful at ICANN (e.g. accounting, ethics, program review, conflict resolution, foundation work (think auction proceeds not concrete) etc.). It is great to get young people but a couple of retired judges might be really handy too.....:-)
Stephanie Perrin
On 2018-04-06 01:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi Donna,
Thanks for the comments. I added the 2 suggestions to the attached document.
Best,
Rafik
2018-04-06 14:41 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:
Hi Rafik
I agree with your first suggestion.
On Q16, could we keep the response as simple as: “Some members of Council have a good understanding of the differences, while others do not."
Thanks
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM *To:* Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> *Cc:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
Hi,
Thanks for the comments and input
for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation" that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment.
For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it."
to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided.
hope those are acceptable.
Best,
Rafik
2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>:
In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.
Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote:
Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect.
Regards,
Philippe
*From:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM *To:* FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics
(Sorry if I’m repetitive)
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
*Error! Filename not specified.*[image: Image removed by sender.] https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=D...>
*Error! Filename not specified.*[image: Image removed by sender.] http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMFa...>
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: *Error! Filename not specified.*[image: Image removed by sender.]https://michele.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&...>
Some thoughts: *Error! Filename not specified.*[image: Image removed by sender.]https://ceo.hosting/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMFaQ&c...>
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of " philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> *Date: *Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
Colleagues,
Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.
I have two comments.
1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)
1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN).
- If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), - if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.
I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.
Regards,
Philippe
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM *To:* Austin, Donna *Cc:* Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response
Hi Donna,
Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready.
we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.
as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.
Best,
Rafik
2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:
Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.
I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response
Hi all,
Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.
Best,
Rafik
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org [image: Image removed by sender.]https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
