Hi Donna, Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April. Best, Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:

Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.

I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.

Donna

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi all,

Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.

Best,

Rafik

Hi, Just a point of clarification, as I was named — I am not an alumni of the fellowship programme, and have never applied to participate in it. . I have spoken about my own pathway to engagement in the ICANN community in my personal comment on the FY19 Budget, in which I suggested further reducing the org's spend on the fellowship: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-fy19-budget-19jan18/2018q1/000011.ht... Best wishes, ​Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On April 5, 2018 11:54 AM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

Hi all,

I have to confess that this one looks better, very objective and

constructive as comment. The small team has done a great job in coming

out with this document. I am sure with a lot of compromise, which i

salute.

Just a quick one to Donna's comment, I believe Ayden as well has been

part of the Fellowship program. I believe it was our entry point into

ICANN, our first time to attend an ICANN public meeting.

I have issues with #Q16 and I don't agree with both suggested options.

For me, the differences between the two programs are very clear and we

are wrong in trying to state otherwise.

I don't think we need to ask anyone to prove to us how these programs

can benefit the GNSO but it is for our SG/Cs to do outreach and

recruit new members there and help them be fit to support our work,

through various existing initiatives.

Also, if we say there are overlaps, then we better point them out

there in a constructive way to help fix it. Since these programs have

different objectives and target a different type of audience, I don't

agree with any attempt to merge them. There is a benefit in having and

keeping both of them.

I would make our response very straight forward and simple as: "The

GNSO Council is familiar with the differences between these programs.

But we would encourage their managers to make sure there are no

possible overlaps, which may result in them looking similar."

Thank you,

Arsene

2018-04-05 4:33 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak@gmail.com:

...

Hi Donna,

Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have

a text ready.

we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.

as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna Donna.Austin@team.neustar:

...

Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the

Council.

I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of

responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics;

however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council

has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our

Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current

councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging

the value of the program from this perspective.

Donna

From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of

*Rafik

Dammak

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM

To: Council GNSO council@gnso.icann.org

Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi all,

Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the

fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on

previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are

looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as

council comment and making changes as needed.

Best,

Rafik

--

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/*, *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)

council mailing list

council@gnso.icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Colleagues, Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here. I have two comments. 1) I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:) 2) Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN). - If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), - if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs. I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward. Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response Hi Donna, Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April. Best, Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>: Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council. I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response Hi all, Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed. Best, Rafik _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect. Regards, Philippe From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM To: FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics (Sorry if I’m repetitive) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response Colleagues, Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here. I have two comments. 1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:) 1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN). * If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), * if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs. I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward. Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response Hi Donna, Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April. Best, Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>: Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council. I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response Hi all, Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed. Best, Rafik _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Hi, Thanks for the comments and input for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation" that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment. For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it." to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided. hope those are acceptable. Best, Rafik 2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>:

In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.

Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote:

Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM *To:* FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics

(Sorry if I’m repetitive)

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/

http://blacknight.blog/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of " philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> *Date: *Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Colleagues,

Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.

I have two comments.

1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)

1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN).

- If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), - if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.

I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM *To:* Austin, Donna *Cc:* Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi Donna,

Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready.

we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.

as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:

Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.

I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.

Donna

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi all,

Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.

Best,

Rafik

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Hi Donna, Thanks for the comments. I added the 2 suggestions to the attached document. Best, Rafik 2018-04-06 14:41 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:

Hi Rafik

I agree with your first suggestion.

On Q16, could we keep the response as simple as: “Some members of Council have a good understanding of the differences, while others do not."

Thanks

Donna

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM *To:* Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> *Cc:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi,

Thanks for the comments and input

for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation" that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment.

For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it."

to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided.

hope those are acceptable.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>:

In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.

Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote:

Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM *To:* FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics

(Sorry if I’m repetitive)

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=D...>

http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMFa...>

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&...>

Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMFaQ&c...>

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of " philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> *Date: *Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Colleagues,

Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.

I have two comments.

1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)

1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN).

- If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), - if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.

I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM *To:* Austin, Donna *Cc:* Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi Donna,

Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready.

we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.

as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>:

Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.

I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.

Donna

*From:* council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi all,

Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.

Best,

Rafik

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

Thanks to all for the work on this; one small point under Q2 – “We note, based on anecdotal evidence, that for example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program...” – it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact – no? Best Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 9:15 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response I apologize for offering so many edits at this point in the process, I started out intending to merely fix a couple of gramaticals but was struck with our fundamental problem here: the need to be positive, as Donna pointed out, yet insist on some critical thinking and analysis about the program, as Ayden has stressed on a number of occasions. We agree we need metrics; I think we might wish to sharpen up the actual goals of the program as well but there is not a question there which really offers that opportunity to comment. Regular audits and program review seem to be required in my view, but it seemed a bit severe to say that. I was struck by the absence of fellows in the working group meetings which I participated in in Puerto Rico. It seems that the fellows are meeting in separate rooms, away from the main stream of activity. This strikes me as odd. We should encourage greater immersion in our activities in my view, and provide mentorship. I have also proposed to Chris Mondini and his team that we really need a "Zoomer" stream in our outreach efforts (referring to a Canadian seniors magazine and range of activities targeted at active retirees) to attract folks with time available, and deeper experience that might be useful at ICANN (e.g. accounting, ethics, program review, conflict resolution, foundation work (think auction proceeds not concrete) etc.). It is great to get young people but a couple of retired judges might be really handy too.....:-) Stephanie Perrin On 2018-04-06 01:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Donna, Thanks for the comments. I added the 2 suggestions to the attached document. Best, Rafik 2018-04-06 14:41 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>: Hi Rafik I agree with your first suggestion. On Q16, could we keep the response as simple as: “Some members of Council have a good understanding of the differences, while others do not." Thanks Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response Hi, Thanks for the comments and input for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation" that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment. For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it." to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided. hope those are acceptable. Best, Rafik 2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com<mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>: In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you. Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> wrote: Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect. Regards, Philippe From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM To: FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics (Sorry if I’m repetitive) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains Error! Filename not specified.[Image removed by sender.]https://www.blacknight.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=8gJQlzAPAhkcL518alKZXHywAubkjv_OgRztZYlA1JQ&s=Y9Efv_X0Ej3toiL2l1R6iUq5zw_dCa58GJKBM5N6iCo&e=> Error! Filename not specified.[Image removed by sender.]http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=8gJQlzAPAhkcL518alKZXHywAubkjv_OgRztZYlA1JQ&s=842ACTjLnRmh9ootjRbim0BqyDTgfslKkDcrxKFUTOw&e=> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: Error! Filename not specified.[Image removed by sender.]https://michele.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=8gJQlzAPAhkcL518alKZXHywAubkjv_OgRztZYlA1JQ&s=50nmZFewtzFh6ld12Myy8c9-QRRtuaBTjMg4ZrgkQfY&e=> Some thoughts: Error! Filename not specified.[Image removed by sender.]https://ceo.hosting/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=8gJQlzAPAhkcL518alKZXHywAubkjv_OgRztZYlA1JQ&s=KQQBlfDLfdPFKfMyNvUB29tWrqrEBwz_4dZ9ICCIrDk&e=> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response Colleagues, Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here. I have two comments. 1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:) 1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN). * If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), * if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs. I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward. Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response Hi Donna, Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April. Best, Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>: Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council. I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response Hi all, Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed. Best, Rafik _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> [Image removed by sender.]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=8gJQlzAPAhkcL518alKZXHywAubkjv_OgRztZYlA1JQ&s=-HpXf4QOxTxJFgfZUHyxZtftxz4APIbo1NOmnkYErow&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Yes my apologies it was sloppily worded...it is a fact, but we know it not because we measured it, but anecdotally.  Not all anecdotes are fake news (sorry I could not resist):-) I would be happy to meet with the fellowship team and discuss, I agree that it is far from comfortable casting stones from afar.  We are trying to help improve things. Stephanie On 2018-04-06 12:40, Austin, Donna wrote:

Hi Marie, I believe you are correct that it is indeed a fact.

I also fully support Stephanie’s suggest edits. Stephanie also raises some really good points about attracting people with specific skills, I certainly agree that a couple of retired judges could be an interesting addition to the ICANN mix. Over time the NomCom has come to understand that Board members not only need to know about ICANN, but that the Board would be well-served by people with specific expertise not dissimilar from some that Stephanie suggests for the Fellowship program. I think it makes perfect sense to rethink the program and target specific expertise.

Given the considerable discussion this topic has generated on the Council list, I wonder if it would make sense for a small group of council volunteers with an interest in this topic to offer to meet with Sally, Siranush and Deborah to cover some of our concerns and see how we can assist in reshaping the program/s—as I believe that is part of the intent of this survey. I think there would be more value in doing this than just responding to the survey and casting stones from afar. I’d be willing to be part of this effort.

Thanks again to Rafik for working through the myriad of different opinions to come up with a good Council response.

Donna

*From:*council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marie Pattullo *Sent:* Friday, April 06, 2018 4:06 AM *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response

Thanks to all for the work on this; one small point under Q2 – “We note, based on anecdotal evidence, that for example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program...” – it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact – no?

Best

Marie

*From:*council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Friday, April 6, 2018 9:15 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response

I apologize for offering so many edits at this point in the process, I started out intending to merely fix a couple of gramaticals but was struck with our fundamental problem here:  the need to be positive, as Donna pointed out, yet insist on some critical thinking and analysis about the program, as Ayden has stressed on a number of occasions.  We agree we need metrics; I think we might wish to sharpen up the actual goals of the program as well but there is not a question there which really offers that opportunity to comment. Regular audits and program review seem to be required in my view, but it seemed a bit severe to say that.

I was struck by the absence of fellows in the working group meetings which I participated in in Puerto Rico.  It seems that the fellows are meeting in separate rooms, away from the main stream of activity.  This strikes me as odd.  We should encourage greater immersion in our activities in my view, and provide mentorship.  I have also proposed to Chris Mondini and his team that we really need a "Zoomer" stream in our outreach efforts (referring to a Canadian seniors magazine and range of activities targeted at active retirees) to attract folks with time available, and deeper experience that might be useful at ICANN (e.g. accounting, ethics, program review, conflict resolution, foundation work (think auction proceeds not concrete) etc.).  It is great to get young people but a couple of retired judges might be really handy too.....:-)

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-04-06 01:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:

Hi Donna,

Thanks for the comments. I added the 2 suggestions to the attached document.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-06 14:41 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>:

Hi Rafik

I agree with your first suggestion.

On Q16, could we keep the response as simple as: “Some members of Council have a good understanding of the differences, while others do not."

Thanks

Donna

*From:*council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM *To:* Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>> *Cc:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi,

Thanks for the comments and input

for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation" that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment.

For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it."

to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided.

hope those are acceptable.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>:

In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.

Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com <mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> wrote:

Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:*Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM *To:* FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics

(Sorry if I’m repetitive)

Regards

Michele

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

*Error! Filename not specified.*Image removed by sender.https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=D...>

*Error! Filename not specified.*Image removed by sender.http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMFa...>

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog: *Error! Filename not specified.*Image removed by sender.https://michele.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMFaQ&...>

Some thoughts: *Error! Filename not specified.*Image removed by sender.https://ceo.hosting/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMFaQ&c...>

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

*From: *council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com <mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com <mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> *Date: *Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 *To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Colleagues,

Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.

I have two comments.

1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)

2. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN).

* If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), * if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.

I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.

Regards,

Philippe

*From:*council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM *To:* Austin, Donna *Cc:* Council GNSO *Subject:* Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi Donna,

Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready.

we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.

as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.

Best,

Rafik

2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>:

Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.

I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.

Donna

*From:*council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM *To:* Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response

Hi all,

Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.

Best,

Rafik

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Image removed by sender.https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

_______________________________________________

council mailing list

council@gnso.icann.org <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_li...>

A typo at Q10 : "The program is targetted to bring new, engaged diverse members to participate in the community, and this is a goal that the GNSO Council hearilyheartily endorses."  Thank you to all who worked on the response. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------Sender:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>Sent at:2018 Apr 7 (Sat) 07:50To:Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>Cc:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>Subject:Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response Hi all, please find attached the latest version of the comment. The edits from Stephanie were accepted and the mention of anecdotal evidence was removed by Marie comment.if there is no objection, I think the comment is ready to go. I  also support Donna idea to have a small team to meet fellowship program managers and will be happy to join the team. Best Regards, Rafik 2018-04-07 6:36 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>: Yes my apologies it was sloppily worded...it is a fact, but we know it not because we measured it, but anecdotally.  Not all anecdotes are fake news (sorry I could not resist):-) I would be happy to meet with the fellowship team and discuss, I agree that it is far from comfortable casting stones from afar.  We are trying to help improve things. Stephanie On 2018-04-06 12:40, Austin, Donna wrote: Hi Marie, I believe you are correct that it is indeed a fact.   I also fully support Stephanie’s suggest edits. Stephanie also raises some really good points about attracting people with specific skills, I certainly agree that a couple of retired judges could be an interesting addition to the ICANN mix. Over time the NomCom has come to understand that Board members not only need to know about ICANN, but that the Board would be well-served by people with specific expertise not dissimilar from some that Stephanie suggests for the Fellowship program. I think it makes perfect sense to rethink the program and target specific expertise.   Given the considerable discussion this topic has generated on the Council list, I wonder if it would make sense for a small group of council volunteers with an interest in this topic to offer to meet with Sally, Siranush and Deborah to cover some of our concerns and see how we can assist in reshaping the program/s—as I believe that is part of the intent of this survey. I think there would be more value in doing this than just responding to the survey and casting stones from afar. I’d be willing to be part of this effort.   Thanks again to Rafik for working through the myriad of different opinions to come up with a good Council response.   Donna   From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:06 AM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response   Thanks to all for the work on this; one small point under Q2 – “We note, based on anecdotal evidence, that for example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program...” – it’s not anecdotal, it’s a fact – no? Best Marie   From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 9:15 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response   I apologize for offering so many edits at this point in the process, I started out intending to merely fix a couple of gramaticals but was struck with our fundamental problem here:  the need to be positive, as Donna pointed out, yet insist on some critical thinking and analysis about the program, as Ayden has stressed on a number of occasions.  We agree we need metrics; I think we might wish to sharpen up the actual goals of the program as well but there is not a question there which really offers that opportunity to comment.  Regular audits and program review seem to be required in my view, but it seemed a bit severe to say that. I was struck by the absence of fellows in the working group meetings which I participated in in Puerto Rico.  It seems that the fellows are meeting in separate rooms, away from the main stream of activity.  This strikes me as odd.  We should encourage greater immersion in our activities in my view, and provide mentorship.  I have also proposed to Chris Mondini and his team that we really need a "Zoomer" stream in our outreach efforts (referring to a Canadian seniors magazine and range of activities targeted at active retirees) to attract folks with time available, and deeper experience that might be useful at ICANN (e.g. accounting, ethics, program review, conflict resolution, foundation work (think auction proceeds not concrete) etc.).  It is great to get young people but a couple of retired judges might be really handy too.....:-) Stephanie Perrin   On 2018-04-06 01:52, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Donna,   Thanks for the comments. I added the 2 suggestions to the attached document.    Best,   Rafik 2018-04-06 14:41 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>: Hi Rafik   I agree with your first suggestion.   On Q16, could we keep the response as simple as: “Some members of Council have a good understanding of the differences, while others do not."   Thanks   Donna   From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response   Hi,   Thanks for the comments and input   for the first suggestion, I think we can keep it simple as suggested under Q #2:"For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program, while we are not inferring any causation"  that is factual and neutral and doesn't embed any judgment.   For Q #16, I don't see there is support for the options available and taking into account the proposals: "Council believes there is a risk of potential overlap between the 2 programs. We would like to seek clarification regarding the number of recipients who benefited from both programs to be used as a metric to monitor the overlap and avoid it." to highlight that need more info about this overlap and indicating that should be avoided.   hope those are acceptable.   Best,   Rafik   2018-04-06 6:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>: In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.   Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.   Best wishes,   Ayden Férdeline      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote:   Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect. Regards,   Philippe   From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM To: FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response   One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics   (Sorry if I’m repetitive)   Regards   Michele     -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains Error! Filename not specified.https://www.blacknight.com/ Error! Filename not specified.http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: Error! Filename not specified.https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: Error! Filename not specified.https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Date: Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response   Colleagues,   Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.   I have two comments.   I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)     Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN). If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.   I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.       Regards,   Philippe   From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response   Hi Donna,   Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.   Best,   Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>: Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.   I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.   Donna   From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response   Hi all,   Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.    Best,   Rafik   _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.   This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.   This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.     _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org 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

Hi Ayden During my time on the Council we have had a number of really valued contributors that I understand came to us via the fellowship program and I think we should acknowledge this. I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the fellowship program as a complete and utter failure (my interpretation of the many posts to this list about the program). I don’t subscribe to that theory. Having been around at the time that the program was developed and implemented, I believe the program has been successful in meeting its original objectives. I do agree that the program has probably reached a point of diminishing returns, but of course the lack of metrics make it almost impossible to determine whether this is the case or levels of success. To that end, it’s time to revisit the goals and objectives and develop meaningful performance metrics. On Q16, I read your observations as suggesting that people are somehow gaming the two programs in order to receive ongoing support to attend ICANN meetings, which if true is concerning. However, if it is being done within the current rules, then perhaps the rules should be reviewed to remove any such possibility. I would prefer that Council comments are constructive and objective. To do this, I think Michele is on point: our comments should be about the overall lack of metrics. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 2:35 PM To: philippe.fouquart@orange.com Cc: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you. Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> wrote: Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect. Regards, Philippe From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM To: FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics (Sorry if I’m repetitive) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=fxure3oxue4Q3v3dXCbQEprIlbtDYRhdIrHBkdcEUpo&e=> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=wlfvSjoTVNO9xxE8DkG7LhEING1IlRZOHyUxlIbN3jE&e=> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=LR0I4A2nEogchcdZVg71Z88A9dsGQEMwmmT-nrjOtbE&e=> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=l4kHX9_3KPZyJZ9kp0cXgUr2hCxNxkZSmFgwGnbTzgA&e=> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40 To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response Colleagues, Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here. I have two comments. 1. I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:) 1. Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen@ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen@ICANN). * If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question), * if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs. I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward. Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM To: Austin, Donna Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response Hi Donna, Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready. we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available. as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April. Best, Rafik 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>: Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council. I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective. Donna From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response Hi all, Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed. Best, Rafik _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.