[Gnso-sc-budget] [EXTERNAL] Re: New backdoor into fellowship

Thu Feb 8 09:28:36 UTC 2018

Ayden et al

I’ve repeatedly asked for metrics around all of this and haven’t made much progress.

If you recall the paper presented by Staff in LA last week which looks at “success” for PDPs etc., there are some relatively simple questions that are asked.
While some are subjective others aren’t.

Extending the same sort of rationale to the various programmes that result in people having their travel funded would seem logical to me.

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: Gnso-sc-budget <gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Thursday 8 February 2018 at 07:25
To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
Cc: "gnso-sc-budget at icann.org" <gnso-sc-budget at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] [EXTERNAL] Re: New backdoor into fellowship

Please rest assured that we will not be submitting a comment to the Council that is based on "conspiracy"; we will be submitting to the Council a comment that is comprehensive and evidence-informed.

I am skeptical about the various, ICANN-funded capacity programmes for a number of reasons, and while I very much welcome metrics, I'd like to see metrics that are developed and agreed by the community.

I reviewed the transcript which Donna shared and saw that Costerton mentioned there were over 400 NextGen applications for the Abu Dhabi meeting. As Michele mentions on page 41, this is not a meaningful metric. I wanted to share a personal thought on this metric as well.

I served on the selection committee for the NextGen programme three times, and when I saw mention of the number of applications, I wondered, 'how many of those 400 actually met the selection criteria outlined on the ICANN website?' For the three rounds I was on this committee I was routinely forwarded applications by ICANN staff from candidates who did not live in the region (NextGen is a regional programme), or whose age was outside the eligibility criteria. It seemed that staff did no first cut to even determine eligibility. I say this because metrics and KPIs can be gamed.

400 qualified applications is one thing. It doesn't mean much, but it means a bit more than 400 applications, including the spam entries because the form had no captcha...

However I/we might be diving too deep into this issue now.

— Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
On 6 February 2018 8:31 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> wrote:

All

I think it’s important that any comments we submit are based in fact (or at least numbers) and not conspiracy and to that end I support Michele’s intervention.

Some of you may be aware that the Council had a discussion with Sally Costerton during the Johannesburg meeting specifically in response to the Council’s comments about the GSE.

It might be helpful to recall some of this discussion in our comments. The transcript is available at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-pti-fy19-rpm-rds-gse-26jun17-en.pdf
The discussion starts on page 34.

Donna

From: Gnso-sc-budget [mailto:gnso-sc-budget-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Erika Mann
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] New backdoor into fellowship

Ayden, All -

I wonder whether we should focus on the question whether GSE (and the ICANN fellowship program in general) shouldn't focus on fellows that have an understanding about the DNS (engineering/legal/security/market) instead of continuing to focus on 'policy development activities' (see quote below).

Ayden - I share the concern you raised but I would be willing to signal support for the GSE quasi fellowship program if it would truly focus on areas mentioned above.

We should have a discussion about the GSE quasi fellowship part in the future. It might be too late for this year but it needs attention.

Thank you for spotting this!

Kind regards,
Erika

"The LAC GSE and ICANN DPRD departments are supporting the participation of newcomers for the coming ICANN 62 Policy Forum in Panama City, this June 25-28, 2018. The idea is to select newcomers from LAC region with previous background/participation in policy development activities, but never had a chance to attend an ICANN meeting in person."
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:39 AM, 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermail_ncuc-2Ddiscuss_2018-2DFebruary_043610.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Si8otq0UaVvD_hFN2qVHXJYIS64BgjGms42zDxef2Bg&s=aR1g0fRd12Z7s5UDd4Xp89A9bZVcwcgbs6d7scnb2MY&e=> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermail_ncuc-2Ddiscuss_2018-2DFebruary_043610.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Si8otq0UaVvD_hFN2qVHXJYIS64BgjGms42zDxef2Bg&s=aR1g0fRd12Z7s5UDd4Xp89A9bZVcwcgbs6d7scnb2MY&e=> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dsc-2Dbudget&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Si8otq0UaVvD_hFN2qVHXJYIS64BgjGms42zDxef2Bg&s=BcXcZUbpzi6nm12nCncBpwFSn75qksZ5cwCoUWADKCY&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dsc-2Dbudget&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Si8otq0UaVvD_hFN2qVHXJYIS64BgjGms42zDxef2Bg&s=BcXcZUbpzi6nm12nCncBpwFSn75qksZ5cwCoUWADKCY&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20180208/da2ddcee/attachment-0001.html>