[Gnso-sc-budget] New backdoor into fellowship

Tue Feb 6 18:57:46 UTC 2018

I agree with Xavier, we should ask for information.

On 6 Feb 2018 10:56, "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It is not a conspiracy to bring people to the fellowship. It  came through
> the regional strategies that are independent. They use the fellowship to
> give onboarding to their selected individuals. That's the explanation, now,
> let's critic the initiative it self for using more money or criteria on the
> selection. It has nothing tondo with the fellowship program.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2018 08:39, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your comments, Martín.
>
> I don't see how this could be seen as anything but a backdoor into the
> fellowship. In the original email
> <https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-February/043610.html>
> from GSE they write, "Selected candidates will be part of the Fellowship
> program and will be granted equivalent travel and accommodation support, as
> well as attend capacity building sessions during the meeting."
>
> However, this programme is not being funded through the fellowship
> programme's budget. It is funded through GSE's budget and we have confirmed
> with the programme administrator that the selected participants will not be
> fellows-in-name, but 'honourary' fellows. The selected participants will be
> chosen by ICANN staff and not subject to the community-led selection panel
> who select the fellowship programme's fellows. There is no published
> selection criteria for this new programme, it has only been advertised on
> our (NCSG) mailing list and not publicly, and the application deadline is
> very tight. I do not think this is a responsible way to administer a
> programme.
>
> It is true that this is funded through this fiscal year's budget, not
> FY19, and so perhaps it was approved before there was a need for spending
> to tighten. Hopefully it will not continue next year. But I find many of
> GSE's activities to be opaque and I am worried that this 'backdoor' might
> become a way for a bloated fellowship programme - or for travel slots to be
> awarded to community members who are not participating in policy work - to
> continue.
>
> This is really not a conspiracy theory. I think this is something we need
> to confront in our comment.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 6 February 2018 5:05 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is not a backdoor to the fellowship program, it was set in  motion from
> another strategic plan, another budget and unrelated to fellowship in any
> way (and before the budget cut proposals)  Let's don't go into conspiracy,
> we can easily critic this new gse initiative, if we want to, with its own
> merits. Not everything revolves on fellowship!
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 6 Feb 2018 03:01, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> The Council has previously expressed concerns regarding ICANN's spend on
> global engagement activities, and I share these concerns. While I think
> there is some value in this work, I do not think I/we have the metrics
> available to assess their effectiveness relative to the amount that is
> being expended. If I am reading the table on page 12 of document #2
> correctly, expenditure on GSE activities is projected to be $30m in FY19.
>
> Comprehensive as the budget documents are, they do not make it easy to
> understand what GSE actually does. Even if I was generous in my appraisal
> of their activities based on my personal interactions with GSE staff at
> non-ICANN events like the IGF, WSIS, and EuroDIG, it is probably fair to
> say that they do than I realise. (Which is a good thing, because if all
> they are doing is attending events and buying stakeholders drinks, it's
> probably not the best use of resources.)
>
> So I am trying to understand what it is that the GSE does. And as it
> happens, an email was sent to one of the NCSG's mailing lists
> <https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-February/043610.html>
> last week by GSE, offering to bring four of our newcomers to the Panama
> City meeting. This has led to some discussion within our member
> constituencies over the selection process, as the fellowship programme
> itself - imperfect as it may be - has community involvement in the
> selection of fellows. This olive branch from GSE, however, will see ICANN
> staff choose the newcomers that are brought to ICANN 62.
>
> I do not want to bore you with our internal discussions. What I do want to
> note is that the GSE seems to be using resources now to bring community
> members to ICANN meetings. We have confirmed off-list that the community
> members funded through this programme will be funded from the GSE budget
> and not from the fellowship programme. My concern, therefore, is that this
> is a new backdoor into the fellowship programme.
>
> In the FY19 budget I was pleased to learn that the number of fellowship
> slots had been cut to 30 (which is still more fellows than I think the
> community has the capacity to onboard). However, with the GSE now funding
> the travel of newcomers from their budget, I am concerned that there may
> not be a reduction at all in the number of supported travellers
> participating in ICANN-funded capacity building programmes.
>
> I just want to flag this. I am not sure if you will agree that this is
> something the Council should comment on (though it is my view that it
> should), but I think it is something we should monitor. When we are told in
> the budget that there will be 30 fellows, I think it is reasonable to
> expect that there will be just 30 fellows - not 30 fellows funded through
> the fellowship programme, and more funded through alternative line items.
> This is a sensitive issue in some stakeholder groups/constituencies,
> particularly ones where many fellows gravitate after the fellowship
> programme (as returning fellows are required to indicate on their
> application form if they have joined an ICANN community, though they are
> not required to show any level of engagement), and not one which I think
> everyone would be able to comment on at the stakeholder group/constituency
> level.
>
> Food for thought,
>
>  Ayden
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-sc-budget mailing list
> Gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sc-budget
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180206/9545be07/attachment-0001.html>