On the Fellowship program
Hi colleagues, I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits. As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments. - I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call. - On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here. - On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here. I would like to suggest an additional text: We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business. - On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”. - On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19. - Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following: “Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “ I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows. - On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings *but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.* - On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here. Happy to provide clarification if needed. Regards, Arsene ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>* Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum <http://www.mabingwa-forum.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>)* - *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday. Many thanks, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------ *[Arsène Tungali](http://about.me/ArseneTungali)* Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](http://www.rudiinternational.org), CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](http://www.smart-serv.info), [Mabingwa Forum](http://www.mabingwa-forum.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)) - [IGFSA Member](http://www.igfsa.org/) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234)) and ([French](http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242))
Hi Ayden, all I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list. Thanks Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday. Many thanks, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi colleagues, I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits. As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments. - I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call. - On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here. - On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here. I would like to suggest an additional text: We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business. - On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”. - On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19. - Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following: “Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “ I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows. - On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging. - On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here. Happy to provide clarification if needed. Regards, Arsene ------------------------ *Arsène Tungali<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=W_Clvbtj2d1dsDiEz6tNNUAGHgdGYH--EJgZlJjMPlU&e=>* Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...>, CEO, Smart Services Sarl<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...>, Mabingwa Forum<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...> Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & Mexico<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - AFRISIG 2016<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - Blogger<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's GNSO Council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...>) - IGFSA Member<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and (French<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>)
Hi Donna, Thanks for your email. The draft fellowship response (as a PDF file) is here; I'm not sure where the Word document is: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-council-icann-fellowship-program-12mar... Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 20 March 2018 7:59 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote:
Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
*[Arsène Tungali](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d...
Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...),
CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...), [Mabingwa Forum](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...)
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
[2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...) & [Mexico](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...)) - [AFRISIG 2016](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...) - [Blogger](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...)) - [IGFSA Member](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...)) and ([French](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...))
Hi Donna, please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council <council@gnso.icann.org
:
Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM *To:* Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings *but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.*
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d...> *
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=wO1kO9K09ppu28Q07as2sA0dXhV1u7ft2cdskAJAt8Y&e=>* ,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=oxbLmDWqlPF86VJJ6l3c4Xo6rP8_GLgHo5TPg7tB6D0&e=>*, *Mabingwa Forum <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=EGjx3qsWIX3vYe5RCz_uVVgd73uZ2TdcjtsV9kFCc_Y&e=>*
Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
2015 Mandela Washington Felllow <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & Mexico <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - AFRISIG 2016 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - Blogger <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's GNSO Council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...> )* - *IGFSA Member <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and (French <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...> )
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment. As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious. Cheers, Martín
On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Donna,
please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation.
Best,
Rafik
2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>: Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com <mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com <mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...>, Mabingwa Forum <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...> Tel: +243 993810967 <tel:+243%20993%20810%20967> GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
2015 Mandela Washington Felllow <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & Mexico <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - AFRISIG 2016 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - Blogger <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's GNSO Council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...>) - IGFSA Member <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report (English <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and (French <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>)
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
<ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi Martin, The fellowship programme is not intended to be an "educational" one. That is the aim of the NextGen@ICANN programme. As it states on the [fellowship website](https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram), selected fellows "must" be one of the following: - Aware of but new to the ICANN environment, - Familiar with ICANN but have not attended an ICANN Public Meeting in person, or - Active participant at ICANN but in need of travel support to broaden knowledge and deepen engagement. I see there being no point in us denying reality and pretending that the fellowship programme is some kind of resounding success, or that with 'more data' we'd suddenly see it works. It isn't working, and we should be honest about that if we want it to improve. I think the Council's proposed comment is an honest assessment of where the programme is today, and for that reason, I support its submission as-is. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 20 March 2018 9:29 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment.
As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious.
Cheers, Martín
On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Donna,
please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation.
Best,
Rafik
2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council <council@gnso.icann.org>:
Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
*[Arsène Tungali](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d...
Co-Founder & Executive Director, [Rudi international](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...),
CEO, [Smart Services Sarl](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...), [Mabingwa Forum](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...)
Tel: [+243 993810967](tel:+243%20993%20810%20967)
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
[2015 Mandela Washington Felllow](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...) (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [Brazil](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...) & [Mexico](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...)) - [AFRISIG 2016](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...) - [Blogger](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...) - ICANN's [GNSO Council](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...) Member.AFRINIC Fellow([Mauritius](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...)) - [IGFSA Member](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...) - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([English](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...)) and ([French](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...))
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
<ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Agree with Ayden. When we drafted the comments, we did try to moderate our personal strong opinions about the fellowship *not* working and bring the entire comment more to high level and be realistic. I suggest those in strong support of the fellowship might try to make an effort to meet those who think the program doesn't work in the middle. Warm regards, Tanya On 20 March 2018 at 22:36, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi Martin,
The fellowship programme is not intended to be an "educational" one. That is the aim of the NextGen@ICANN programme. As it states on the fellowship website <https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram>, selected fellows "must" be one of the following:
- Aware of but new to the ICANN environment, - Familiar with ICANN but have not attended an ICANN Public Meeting in person, or - Active participant at ICANN but in need of travel support to broaden knowledge and deepen engagement.
I see there being no point in us denying reality and pretending that the fellowship programme is some kind of resounding success, or that with 'more data' we'd suddenly see it works. It isn't working, and we should be honest about that if we want it to improve.
I think the Council's proposed comment is an honest assessment of where the programme is today, and for that reason, I support its submission as-is.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 20 March 2018 9:29 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment.
As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious.
Cheers, Martín
On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Donna,
please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation.
Best,
Rafik
2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council < council@gnso.icann.org>:
Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM *To:* Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings *but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.*
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d...> *
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=wO1kO9K09ppu28Q07as2sA0dXhV1u7ft2cdskAJAt8Y&e=>* ,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=oxbLmDWqlPF86VJJ6l3c4Xo6rP8_GLgHo5TPg7tB6D0&e=>*, *Mabingwa Forum <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=EGjx3qsWIX3vYe5RCz_uVVgd73uZ2TdcjtsV9kFCc_Y&e=>*
Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
2015 Mandela Washington Felllow <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & Mexico <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - AFRISIG 2016 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - Blogger <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's GNSO Council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...> )* - *IGFSA Member <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and (French <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...> )
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
<ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi all, the small team will continue the work on the comment based on the feedback from the council public meeting last week and any other input received. as agreed, a new version should be shared asap for council review. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 21:41 GMT+00:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>:
Agree with Ayden. When we drafted the comments, we did try to moderate our personal strong opinions about the fellowship *not* working and bring the entire comment more to high level and be realistic. I suggest those in strong support of the fellowship might try to make an effort to meet those who think the program doesn't work in the middle. Warm regards, Tanya
On 20 March 2018 at 22:36, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Hi Martin,
The fellowship programme is not intended to be an "educational" one. That is the aim of the NextGen@ICANN programme. As it states on the fellowship website <https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram>, selected fellows "must" be one of the following:
- Aware of but new to the ICANN environment, - Familiar with ICANN but have not attended an ICANN Public Meeting in person, or - Active participant at ICANN but in need of travel support to broaden knowledge and deepen engagement.
I see there being no point in us denying reality and pretending that the fellowship programme is some kind of resounding success, or that with 'more data' we'd suddenly see it works. It isn't working, and we should be honest about that if we want it to improve.
I think the Council's proposed comment is an honest assessment of where the programme is today, and for that reason, I support its submission as-is.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 20 March 2018 9:29 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment.
As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious.
Cheers, Martín
On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Donna,
please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation.
Best,
Rafik
2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council < council@gnso.icann.org>:
Hi Ayden, all
I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list.
Thanks
Donna
*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM *To:* Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program
I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday.
Many thanks,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi colleagues,
I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits.
As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments.
- I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call.
- On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here.
- On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here.
I would like to suggest an additional text:
We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business.
- On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”.
- On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19.
- Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following:
“Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “
I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows.
- On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings *but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging.*
- On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here.
Happy to provide clarification if needed.
Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d...> *
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=wO1kO9K09ppu28Q07as2sA0dXhV1u7ft2cdskAJAt8Y&e=>* ,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=oxbLmDWqlPF86VJJ6l3c4Xo6rP8_GLgHo5TPg7tB6D0&e=>*, *Mabingwa Forum <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=EGjx3qsWIX3vYe5RCz_uVVgd73uZ2TdcjtsV9kFCc_Y&e=>*
Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
2015 Mandela Washington Felllow <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & Mexico <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - AFRISIG 2016 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - Blogger <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's GNSO Council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...> )* - *IGFSA Member <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.
Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and (French <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...> )
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
<ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
I��m also taking a look at the draft and will have comments back tomorrow. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, the small team will continue the work on the comment based on the feedback from the council public meeting last week and any other input received. as agreed, a new version should be shared asap for council review. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 21:41 GMT+00:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>: Agree with Ayden. When we drafted the comments, we did try to moderate our personal strong opinions about the fellowship *not* working and bring the entire comment more to high level and be realistic. I suggest those in strong support of the fellowship might try to make an effort to meet those who think the program doesn't work in the middle. Warm regards, Tanya On 20 March 2018 at 22:36, Ayden F��rdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Hi Martin, The fellowship programme is not intended to be an "educational" one. That is the aim of the NextGen@ICANN programme. As it states on the [X] fellowship website<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_fellowshi...>, selected fellows "must" be one of the following: * Aware of but new to the ICANN environment, * Familiar with ICANN but have not attended an ICANN Public Meeting in person, or * Active participant at ICANN but in need of travel support to broaden knowledge and deepen engagement. I see there being no point in us denying reality and pretending that the fellowship programme is some kind of resounding success, or that with 'more data' we'd suddenly see it works. It isn't working, and we should be honest about that if we want it to improve. I think the Council's proposed comment is an honest assessment of where the programme is today, and for that reason, I support its submission as-is. Best wishes, Ayden F��rdeline �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ Original Message �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ On 20 March 2018 9:29 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment. As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious. Cheers, Mart��n On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Donna, please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>: Hi Ayden, all I��m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list. Thanks Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden F��rdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Ars��ne Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday. Many thanks, Ayden F��rdeline �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ Original Message �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Ars��ne Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi colleagues, I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits. As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments. - I don��t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call. - On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that ��active and meaningful�� participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be ��active and meaningful�� participants? I don��t have the proper wording here but that��s what I would like to see reflected here. - On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn��t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don��t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here. I would like to suggest an additional text: We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business. - On Q7, I don��t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: ��It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship��. - On Q10: I don��t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19. - Q12: I don��t support this paragraph and would suggest the following: ��Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN��s remit. �� I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows. - On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging. - On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here. Happy to provide clarification if needed. Regards, Arsene ------------------------ *[cid:][cid:][X]Ars��ne Tungali<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=W_Clvbtj2d1dsDiEz6tNNUAGHgdGYH--EJgZlJjMPlU&e=>* Co-Founder & Executive Director, [cid:] [cid:] [X] Rudi international<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...>, CEO, [cid:] [cid:] [X] Smart Services Sarl<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...>, [cid:] [cid:] [X] Mabingwa Forum<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...> Tel: +243 993810967<tel:+243%20993%20810%20967> GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo [cid:][cid:][X]2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [cid:] [cid:] [X] Brazil<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & [cid:] [cid:] [X] Mexico<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - [cid:] [cid:] [X] AFRISIG 2016<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - [cid:] [cid:] [X] Blogger<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's [cid:] [cid:] [X] GNSO Council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow ([cid:][cid:][X]Mauritius<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...>) - [cid:] [cid:] [X] IGFSA Member<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([cid:][cid:][X]English<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and ([cid:][cid:][X]French<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> [X]https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> <ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> [X]https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
Rafik, all Sorry for the delay in providing my comments. As an overall comment, I think we should recognize that the fellowship does have value and has been responsible for providing the Council with a number of valued contributors such as Martin and Arsene, and others such as Amr and Marilia. All valued contributors that we may not have had the pleasure of knowing if it were not for the program. I do agree that metrics are required, along with a restating of the goals and objectives of the program. In my mind these are currently very broad and vague. Thanks to all who have contributed to these comments. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:22 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: On the Fellowship program Hi all, the small team will continue the work on the comment based on the feedback from the council public meeting last week and any other input received. as agreed, a new version should be shared asap for council review. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 21:41 GMT+00:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>: Agree with Ayden. When we drafted the comments, we did try to moderate our personal strong opinions about the fellowship *not* working and bring the entire comment more to high level and be realistic. I suggest those in strong support of the fellowship might try to make an effort to meet those who think the program doesn't work in the middle. Warm regards, Tanya On 20 March 2018 at 22:36, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> wrote: Hi Martin, The fellowship programme is not intended to be an "educational" one. That is the aim of the NextGen@ICANN programme. As it states on the [X] fellowship website<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_fellowshi...>, selected fellows "must" be one of the following: * Aware of but new to the ICANN environment, * Familiar with ICANN but have not attended an ICANN Public Meeting in person, or * Active participant at ICANN but in need of travel support to broaden knowledge and deepen engagement. I see there being no point in us denying reality and pretending that the fellowship programme is some kind of resounding success, or that with 'more data' we'd suddenly see it works. It isn't working, and we should be honest about that if we want it to improve. I think the Council's proposed comment is an honest assessment of where the programme is today, and for that reason, I support its submission as-is. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 20 March 2018 9:29 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, I have to say, I supported a comment asking with full power and rights for metrics and the desire to see more connection between the program and the GNSO PDPs. I do not support a comment that is supposed to be high-level, without data, stating what this document states. This comment is not useful to develop an educational program that is built to both increase participation but also awareness and network at several level global. This program is a key part on ICANN legitimacy, we should take all the steps to improve it, not just jump to such a destructive comment. As it is, I cannot vote it in good conscious. Cheers, Martín On 20 Mar 2018, at 17:55, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Donna, please find attached the word version of the comment presented last week and the background paper about the consultation. Best, Rafik 2018-03-20 19:59 GMT+00:00 Austin, Donna via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>: Hi Ayden, all I’m unable to find the beginning of this thread, the questionnaire and draft responses. Is it possible to have the original information resent to the council list. Thanks Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:37 AM To: Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] On the Fellowship program I would like to express my support for the questionnaire responses which were presented to the Council by Rafik yesterday. Many thanks, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 15 March 2018 3:50 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi colleagues, I am taking this opportunity to contribute to this draft as submitted by our colleagues. I would like to thank the small group for coming up with these answers. Please see bellow my comments and suggested edits. As much as I see value for us, as a Council, to respond but I also think it would be difficult for us to agree on this as it would be difficult within the GNSO itself. But I will personally be okay with this draft after consideration has been taken of my bellow small comments. - I don’t support the HL comments. I would suggest we delete that section and keep our responses based on the questions as requested by the call. - On Q1: I think we are too demanding here. Though this looks good but I think we are going too far in terms of what we ask fellows to be able to do. I would like to suggest that the spirit of this paragraph be to mean that this is the ideal that we would like to see. I am sure many of us agree that “active and meaningful” participation in PDPs is not easy and it is a challenge, that even some of those who have been to ICANN for very long are failing to be “active and meaningful” participants? I don’t have the proper wording here but that’s what I would like to see reflected here. - On Q4, I have the following comment: Not having fellowship alumni active in GNSO doesn’t mean they are not active elsewhere within ICANN. I believe if we check other SO/ACs, we will find maybe many of them active there. If we don’t have them active in the GNSO, maybe it is because we are failing in terms of outreach? Or we should review available learning materials (ICANN Learn, etc) and see whether they provide enough information for someone to decide to join the GNSO. Just thinking outloud here. I would like to suggest an additional text: We have to note however that some members of the Council started as fellows and many other alumni are active in our different SG/Cs but more work needs to be done to have many more active in our core business. - On Q7, I don’t know what exactly we request on the last paragraph and would suggest we remove it: “It may also be advisable to interview candidates to ascertain their suitability for a fellowship”. - On Q10: I don’t agree with this but would suggest the way around. Keep the fellowship as it is and push for an evaluation (on KPI) that will provide metrics. And only after that assessment, we can make an informed decision. The budget issue should not be put forward here because as we know, the Fellowship program does not cost that much to the organization, as said in many public comments on FY19. - Q12: I don’t support this paragraph and would suggest the following: “Many first time fellows we interact with are not enough knowledgeable regarding ICANN-related issues and in particular GNSO topics. This is understandable because it is their first participation at an ICANN meeting. Many of them are interested in important Internet governance issues that fall outside of ICANN’s remit. “ I would suggest we emphasize on the fact that what we find abnormal is when the same applies to returning fellows not to first time fellows. - On Q13, I would like to suggest we add the text in bold: We are not aware of any Fellows actively attending in GNSO Council meetings but we have seen some attending SG/C meetings and ask questions, which is encouraging. - On Q14: Not sure on the basis of what we said YES. Are we able as the Council to meet with the fellows? I think we should be clear on what we mean here. Happy to provide clarification if needed. Regards, Arsene ------------------------ *[X]Arsène Tungali<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__about.me_ArseneTungali&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=sT5WMH_Oq8OlqEsaNr-DG4FGvk2rZ6rlwnWLYDAOpPM&s=W_Clvbtj2d1dsDiEz6tNNUAGHgdGYH--EJgZlJjMPlU&e=>* Co-Founder & Executive Director, [X] Rudi international<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rudiinternational.or...>, CEO, [X] Smart Services Sarl<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.smart-2Dserv.info&d=...>, [X] Mabingwa Forum<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mabingwa-2Dforum.com...> Tel: +243 993810967<tel:+243%20993%20810%20967> GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo [X]2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com_201...> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF [X] Brazil<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...> & [X] Mexico<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetsociety.org_...>) - [X] AFRISIG 2016<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__afrisig.org_afrisig-2D20...> - [X] Blogger<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tungali.blogspot.com&d=D...> - ICANN's [X] GNSO Council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_about...> Member. AFRINIC Fellow ([X]Mauritius<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.afrinic.net_en_libra...>) - [X] IGFSA Member<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.igfsa.org_&d=DwMGaQ&...> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report ([X]English<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) and ([X]French<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cipesa.org_-3Fwpfb-5Fdl-...>) _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> [X]https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> <ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation .pdf><GNSO Council Comment - Fellowship Program at ICANN Community Consultation Process.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> [X]https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=mvge55cf9FrU9dcxV-i-HH5688nWX8PAXqfuVHZCxkk&s=trGqwylmHj1iRBX6WiHlXsvyk2M8BHz8X-Ag72CJ6TY&e=>
participants (6)
-
Arsène Tungali -
Austin, Donna -
Ayden Férdeline -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Rafik Dammak -
Tatiana Tropina