Thanks Martín, we have tabled your comments for discussion on the SCBO's call on Monday. If possible, are you able to suggest alternative language for the SCBO's review? I ask because I think our current language calls for these programs to be rightsized following an evaluation of their effectiveness, which does not necessarily entail a cut. Or are you suggesting that the entire paragraph should be deleted? Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:42 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:

Ayden,, Thank you very much for all the work being done. I fully support the comment, but I do have one objection. I do not think we all agree that program that have just been cut in half like the fellowship should be escalated down. I do share that I don’t fully know all programs from at-large and staff relating to this outreach and on boarding efforts, but I defiantly don’t believe that the NextGen nor the Fellowship are the problem or the concern. Specially when our call for modifications and cut downs were heard and are being implemented. Other than that, excluding from the text our concerns with fellowship and NextGen, which I believe are not bloated nor lack of good results, I support the rest.

Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 20:58, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:

Dear all,

On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.

We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.

If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!

Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.

Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline <ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.docx><ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.pdf>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

If you can join the call, Martin, that would be great - we can wordsmith this particular paragraph live along with the SCBO's Subject Matter Experts and other interested Councilors. I will forward you the meeting invitation. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:56 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:

Ayden, As long as we take out those specific programs, I agree with the rest of the text. I don’t think the ambassadors hurt as well. I can give a proposed change, but it will be the same text minus those few words less. I am gonna try to be in the call. Thanks!

Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 21:52, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:

Thanks Martín, we have tabled your comments for discussion on the SCBO's call on Monday. If possible, are you able to suggest alternative language for the SCBO's review? I ask because I think our current language calls for these programs to be rightsized following an evaluation of their effectiveness, which does not necessarily entail a cut. Or are you suggesting that the entire paragraph should be deleted?

Best wishes, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:42 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Ayden,, Thank you very much for all the work being done. I fully support the comment, but I do have one objection. I do not think we all agree that program that have just been cut in half like the fellowship should be escalated down. I do share that I don’t fully know all programs from at-large and staff relating to this outreach and on boarding efforts, but I defiantly don’t believe that the NextGen nor the Fellowship are the problem or the concern. Specially when our call for modifications and cut downs were heard and are being implemented. Other than that, excluding from the text our concerns with fellowship and NextGen, which I believe are not bloated nor lack of good results, I support the rest.

Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 20:58, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:

Dear all,

On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019.

We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email.

If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you!

Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted.

Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline <ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.docx><ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.pdf>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Hi Arsene, I am responding here in my personal capacity, but I will take your comments back to the SCBO and will comment again if I am directed to do so.

From what I recall the SCBO has considered the proposed changes to these programs however we still had concerns regarding their effectiveness. While some members did support trimming these programs, as a compromise and cognisant of the concerns you (and Martin) raised last year, we instead settled upon language that we thought was balanced and tied the growth and continuation of these important capacity development programs to their effectiveness. This was in line with our past comments that have tied activities to performance. We have also tried to be consistent, calling for fiscal prudence in light of the current budgetary situation.

Strong concerns have also been raised regarding the transition of funding away from community groups themselves to allocate and into staff-managed programs that do not always serve community needs. I would be happy to direct you to the recordings of our calls if you would find these conversations useful, for information purposes. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:14 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ayden,

I appreciate this discussion about these programs and I do agree with Martin that we have spoken about their effectiveness and the need for a kind of review. As we all know, our voice has been heard and there is a process underway in this regards.

I don't think we need to mention this again in our comment but i believe we should give some time and appreciate the efforts that have been put into this and then evaluate later on. I won't be able to attend your upcoming call but i would strongly suggest the removal of the whole paragraph. To make it short, i am suggesting the Council to be silent on this, for now.

Other than that, I do support the submission of the comment (minus that paragraph) and would like to appreciate the work of the SCBO.

Regards, Arsene

2019-01-24 16:59 UTC−08:00, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com:

...

If you can join the call, Martin, that would be great - we can wordsmith this particular paragraph live along with the SCBO's Subject Matter Experts and other interested Councilors. I will forward you the meeting invitation. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:56 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent mpsilvavalent@gmail.com wrote:

...

Ayden, As long as we take out those specific programs, I agree with the rest of the text. I don’t think the ambassadors hurt as well. I can give a proposed change, but it will be the same text minus those few words less. I am gonna try to be in the call. Thanks! Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 21:52, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com wrote: Thanks Martín, we have tabled your comments for discussion on the SCBO's call on Monday. If possible, are you able to suggest alternative language for the SCBO's review? I ask because I think our current language calls for these programs to be rightsized following an evaluation of their effectiveness, which does not necessarily entail a cut. Or are you suggesting that the entire paragraph should be deleted? Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:42 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent mpsilvavalent@gmail.com wrote:

...

Ayden,, Thank you very much for all the work being done. I fully support the comment, but I do have one objection. I do not think we all agree that program that have just been cut in half like the fellowship should be escalated down. I do share that I don’t fully know all programs from at-large and staff relating to this outreach and on boarding efforts, but I defiantly don’t believe that the NextGen nor the Fellowship are the problem or the concern. Specially when our call for modifications and cut downs were heard and are being implemented. Other than that, excluding from the text our concerns with fellowship and NextGen, which I believe are not bloated nor lack of good results, I support the rest. Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 20:58, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the proposed FY20 Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. Absent any objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit this comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you have any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share before this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this call. Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are raised after 28 January via email. If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share a revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to review the final version. Thank you! Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document Drafting and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not have a firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this paragraph should remain, be edited, or deleted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline <ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.docx><ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - clean.pdf>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

--

Arsène Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international

http://www.rudiinternational.org,CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.htm... (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programme... & Mexico http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programme...)

- AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger

http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)*

Hi Arsene, I am responding again in my personal capacity. I do not agree that there is a disconnect between calling for fiscal prudence while making recommendations that would potentially see cuts to projects that support the community. It is actually a matter of integrity here; I do not think community projects should be immune to cuts 'just because' they support us. If they are ineffective they should face scrutiny like any other. That said, I disagree with the framing of the fellowship program as some kind of community support. It isn't. It may indirectly support some parts of the GNSO, however I see the fellowship program as a PR initiative for ICANN org. It exists primarily to help ICANN org increase awareness about ICANN's mission and mandate in the fellow's country and region. Were it to support the community, it's primary goal would be to get fellows engaged with internal ICANN policy development processes, and the community would be involved in selecting those fellows who self-identify as being a part of a GNSO SG or C. Even with its reforms, the GNSO as a whole has one single person on the fellowship selection committee. As the NCSG expressed in our comments on the fellowship program last year, it can actually harm rather than help the community: "... the risk for SO/ACs that have a more open membership structure is to recruit fellows who do not have the time, expertise, nor the dedication to get engaged with the community entity that they have joined, but they become a member regardless. While this leads to an increase in membership of these community groups, the fellows will not be active volunteers, nor care about that group’s values and mission. They will, however, gain membership so that they can apply for another fellowship and the membership rights to participate and take part in elections. Since they are uninterested in internal community work, their participation, especially in elections, is not based on merits and advancing the values of the community group, but is instead based on geopolitical reasons or supporting the individuals they have befriended. This has an even bigger risk in that those who are uninterested in the community work can be elected to offices merely because they have been part of the fellowship program and have made friends, and not because they have the knowledge, interest, or capacity to contribute to the community." [1] [1] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-fellowship-proposal-11jun18/attachme... Personally, I see a role for the fellowship program, but I think it has grown too large, too quickly, and this is concerning, particularly given bottom-up, community driven proposals (i.e. ABRs, CROP) have suffered extreme cuts. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:47 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Ayden,

I will be waiting to hear what the SCBO thinks, after your meeting.

However, I still think we should be silent on this for now and see what the implemented changes will bring and then we can review our position. I do believe that there will be some improvements on all front with the ongoing actions under implementation. This won't happen overnight, let's give some time.

Also, speaking on financial constraints, we do have in the comment so many other areas which consume the budget way more than these programs do. Remember, these are programs that directly benefit the community, something we are advocating for as a Council and considering the spirit of the current comment.

This will be my last comment on this and I will go with with the comment the Council as a whole will agree on.

Thanks, Arsene

2019-01-24 17:24 UTC−08:00, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com:

...

Hi Arsene, I am responding here in my personal capacity, but I will take your comments back to the SCBO and will comment again if I am directed to do so. From what I recall the SCBO has considered the proposed changes to these programs however we still had concerns regarding their effectiveness. While some members did support trimming these programs, as a compromise and cognisant of the concerns you (and Martin) raised last year, we instead settled upon language that we thought was balanced and tied the growth and continuation of these important capacity development programs to their effectiveness. This was in line with our past comments that have tied activities to performance. We have also tried to be consistent, calling for fiscal prudence in light of the current budgetary situation. Strong concerns have also been raised regarding the transition of funding away from community groups themselves to allocate and into staff-managed programs that do not always serve community needs. I would be happy to direct you to the recordings of our calls if you would find these conversations useful, for information purposes. Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:14 PM, Arsène Tungali arsenebaguma@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Ayden, I appreciate this discussion about these programs and I do agree with Martin that we have spoken about their effectiveness and the need for a kind of review. As we all know, our voice has been heard and there is a process underway in this regards. I don't think we need to mention this again in our comment but i believe we should give some time and appreciate the efforts that have been put into this and then evaluate later on. I won't be able to attend your upcoming call but i would strongly suggest the removal of the whole paragraph. To make it short, i am suggesting the Council to be silent on this, for now. Other than that, I do support the submission of the comment (minus that paragraph) and would like to appreciate the work of the SCBO. Regards, Arsene 2019-01-24 16:59 UTC−08:00, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com:

...

If you can join the call, Martin, that would be great - we can wordsmith this particular paragraph live along with the SCBO's Subject Matter Experts and other interested Councilors. I will forward you the meeting invitation. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:56 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent mpsilvavalent@gmail.com wrote:

...

Ayden, As long as we take out those specific programs, I agree with the rest of the text. I don’t think the ambassadors hurt as well. I can give a proposed change, but it will be the same text minus those few words less. I am gonna try to be in the call. Thanks! Best, Martín

...

On 24 Jan 2019, at 21:52, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com wrote: Thanks Martín, we have tabled your comments for discussion on the SCBO's call on Monday. If possible, are you able to suggest alternative language for the SCBO's review? I ask because I think our current language calls for these programs to be rightsized following an evaluation of their effectiveness, which does not necessarily entail a cut. Or are you suggesting that the entire paragraph should be deleted? Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 24, 2019 7:42 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent mpsilvavalent@gmail.com wrote:

> Ayden,, > Thank you very much for all the work being done. I fully support > the > comment, but I do have one objection. I do not think we all agree > that > program that have just been cut in half like the fellowship should > be > escalated down. I do share that I don’t fully know all programs > from > at-large and staff relating to this outreach and on boarding > efforts, > but I defiantly don’t believe that the NextGen nor the Fellowship > are > the problem or the concern. Specially when our call for > modifications > and cut downs were heard and are being implemented. > Other than that, excluding from the text our concerns with > fellowship > and NextGen, which I believe are not bloated nor lack of good > results, I > support the rest. > Best, > Martín > > > On 24 Jan 2019, at 20:58, Ayden Férdeline icann@ferdeline.com > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > On behalf of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN > > Budget and > > Operations, please find attached our draft comment on the > > proposed FY20 > > Budget and Operating Plan for your review and consideration. > > Absent any > > objections from a member of the Council we are seeking to submit > > this > > comment on behalf of the GNSO Council on 8 February 2019. > > We have our next call on Monday, 28 January at 14:00 UTC. If you > > have > > any questions, concerns, or suggested edits which you can share > > before > > this call, we will gladly table them for discussion on this > > call. > > Alternatively we can address any concerns or questions that are > > raised > > after 28 January via email. > > If possible, please raise any concerns by 1 February 2019 at > > 14:00 UTC > > so that the SCBO is able to address these concerns and to share > > a > > revised draft with the Council with sufficient time for you to > > review > > the final version. Thank you! > > Finally, there is one paragraph in the proposed comment that is > > highlighted in yellow. This is in reference to the Document > > Drafting > > and Development pilot program. At this time the SCBO does not > > have a > > firm view on whether or not this text should remain. We would > > appreciate input from the Council on whether or not this > > paragraph > > should remain, be edited, or deleted. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > <ICANN FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - > > clean.docx><ICANN > > FY20 Draft ICANN Budget - GNSO Comments_v0.6 - > > clean.pdf>_______________________________________________ > > council mailing list > > council@gnso.icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-- Arsène Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international http://www.rudiinternational.org,CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.htm... (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programme... & Mexico http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programme...)

- AFRISIG 2016 http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/ - Blogger

http://tungali.blogspot.com - ICANN's GNSO Council https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners)*

--

Arsène Tungali http://about.me/ArseneTungali Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international

http://www.rudiinternational.org,CEO,* Smart Services Sarl https://www.smart-kitoko.com/*, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm Member. UN IGF MAG https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm Member