[Gnso-sc-budget] New backdoor into fellowship

Tue Feb 6 19:24:39 UTC 2018

All

Good to see so much activity on this list, though I’m falling a little behind.

I’m not personally interested in conspiracy theories or backdoors etc., I don’t think that helps anyone and could distract from valid concerns about expenditure.

It’d be helpful to get more information on what is going on and I’ve no issue personally with Xavier sharing these queries with his colleagues in GSE.

I do, however, think that metrics / ROI / KPIs need to be highlighted. What is the expected ROI on this spend?

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265
,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
From: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "mpsilvavalent at gmail.com" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 18:58
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] New backdoor into fellowship

I agree with Xavier, we should ask for information.

On 6 Feb 2018 10:56, "Martin Pablo Silva Valent" <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180206/3bbccc2e/attachment-0001.html>