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 at gmail.com>Sent at:2018 Apr 7 (Sat) 07:50To:Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>Cc:council at gnso.icann.org <council at 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 at 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 at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:06 AM
To: Stephanie Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>;
council at 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 at gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 9:15 AM
To: council at 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 at 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 at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 10:02 PM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: Council GNSO <council at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gnso.icann.org>
on behalf of "philippe.fouquart at orange.com"
<philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
Date:
Thursday 5 April
2018 at 15:40
To:
Council GNSO <council at 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 at ICANN is the
extent to which
Fellowship is granted
to under 30
under/postgrad/PhD
students (who
may/should fall under
NextGen at 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 at 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 at 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 at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf
Of Rafik
Dammak
Sent:
Monday, April
02, 2018 4:27
PM
To:
Council GNSO
<council at 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 at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180407/bb688b24/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180407/bb688b24/image001-0001.jpg>