[Gnso-sc-budget] [budget comment] proposed change to paragraph re: fellowship program

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Lovely. Print it.

Best,
Martin.

> On 1 Feb 2019, at 18:46, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this Martin, I appreciate you putting forward this language for our consideration. 
> 
> I have made a few stylistic edits for consistency with the rest of our comment. Please see below. Is this language acceptable to you, Martin?
> 1.     The GNSO Council requests We demand to see more evidence of the ICANN Fellowship program’s effectiveness, particularly specially at leading to engagement in GNSO policy work. This would allow us, in order to assess the return on investment in relation to the resources ICANN is assigning to it. Specially taking in account that the program had significant change in size over time, both in growth and it latest cut, we need to be sure ICANN is allocating an appropriate amount of resources compared to what is delivering. 
> 
> 2.     Since Tthe target audience of the NextGen at ICANN program appears to some members of the GNSO Council to overlaps at some point with the ICANN Fellowship program. We would appreciate further information on how the programs differ, and on what number of individuals participate have received funding from both programs. ,  the NextGen program accepts participants from 18 years of age until 30 and requieres the applicant to be actively studying or doing research at an education institution (and to present an academic work to the program), whereas the Fellowship accepts participants from the age of 21 with no age limit going up, that may or not be studying or doing research at an educational institution. Besides, NextGen is regional toward where the meeting is being held, the fellowship is global, although prioritize regional applicants.
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden 
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, February 1, 2019 4:31 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ayden,
>> First a correction, I think Rafik never got to be an Alumni. Let’s aim towards a happy conclusion (do remember I agree with EVERYTHING the SCBO drafted, but this very small part, I am really not trying to be hard at all):
>> We demand to see more evidence of the ICANN Fellowship program effectiveness, specially at leading to engagement in GNSO policy work, in order to asses the resources ICANN is assigning to it. Specially taking in account that the program had significant change in size over time, both in growth and it latest cut, we need to be sure ICANN is allocating an appropriate amount of resources compared to what is delivering. 
>> Since the target audience of the NextGen at ICANN program overlaps at some point with the ICANN Fellowship program,  the NextGen program accepts participants from 18 years of age until 30 and requieres the applicant to be actively studying or doing research at an education institution (and to present an academic work to the program), whereas the Fellowship accepts participants from the age of 21 with no age limit going up, that may or not be studying or doing research at an educational institution. Besides, NextGen is regional toward where the meeting is being held, the fellowship is global, although prioritize regional applicants.
>> I excluded the negatives, preservers the concerns and the demand of more information towards making a statement on the status of the resources allocated to the programs. I did took away the recommendation of folding both programs together, the NextGen goal is different and exist for a reason, with different dynamics needed and different expectations. Youth needs its dedicated program, and focusing on academias grants that they have some level of knowledge and engagement in the ecosystem.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Martín 
>> 
>>> On 1 Feb 2019, at 18:06, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Martin,
>>> 
>>> I am responding again in my personal capacity.
>>> 
>>> You mention that there are some Fellow alumni who are in leadership positions. This is true. However, I would note that holding a leadership position on its own does not necessarily attest to the success of the program; whereas bringing substantive contributions to working groups would, in my opinion.
>>> 
>>> I think the fellowship program is not effective at achieving its stated objective of "creat[ing] a broader base of knowledgeable constituents to engage in the ICANN multistakeholder process." I think it has been broadly successful at bringing in individuals from under-served and under-represented communities, but the natural next step, in my view, would be in ensuring that the knowledge these people bring is used and tapped into by the ICANN community. This isn't happening. And I think it is because many of these individuals possess neither the knowledge nor the interest in DNS policy to contribute to discussions. One of the other goals of the fellowship program was to bring in those not otherwise able to attend face-to-face meetings to attend in-person. While this is an important objective, attending ICANN meetings on its own does not in and of itself enable a participant to meaningfully contribute to policy making processes. Attending meetings in person is important for networking, building relationships, and better understanding the processes, but it is not the only way to get engaged in ICANN activities, and I think one has to question what the return on investment is for ICANN.
>>> 
>>> In the case of the fellowship, I disagree that its growth has been because it was successful. I think it has grown in size because it has not had the right metrics in place to measure whether or not it works. In my view, the success of the program should be measured by verifying the participation of the fellows in GNSO policy development process working groups, cross-community working groups, participation on calls and in mailing lists, and by measuring how many fellows are pen holders in drafting public comments, or otherwise substantively contributing to processes. Being nominally a leader or an officer of an SO/ AC does not necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship program.
>>> 
>>> You mention that I am an alumni of the NextGen program, which I have supported cutting. This is true. I did participate in it, and have seen first-hand why it is unlikely to ever be successful at leading participants to become engaged in ICANN policy development processes. I am afraid that this is not a well-run program. DNS policy is a narrow field; finding those who are interested in this is a challenge. As an ICANN community I think we can have better and more effective interaction with a smaller number of fellows and NextGen participants. 
>>> 
>>> I would like us to work towards creating a comment which includes language we can both live with. I am not comfortable remaining silent on this issue, and do not support deleting the points on the Fellowship and NextGen programs. Are you able to come up with any alternative language for the SCBO's consideration that might satisfy us both, Martin?
>>> 
>>> Many thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ayden  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Friday, February 1, 2019 3:35 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ayden,
>>>> I comment things when I see them, I am not a following closely SCBO daily business nor do I have to. Eventually all SCBO conclusions go to the Council, I don’t loose my right to opinion jus because I am part of this list I joined way in the beginning. If that’s the case in your opinion, I can request being excluded of the list so I can comment on the Council level. I don’t see how is that a solution. 
>>>> 
>>>> I am sorry we don’t agree on time, but it is my true opinion (that is what I will comment in an eventual vote on this matter, better do it now than then, no?), I agree on the 95% of the comment but this two sentences. Is not that I am bombing away all the SCBO work. You said yourself in the call that at least two councils will oppose to these sentences, and you were right. Not really a surprise.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not hold nor hide a conflict of interest at all ! I’ve presented my self endlessly, even in LA, as an alumni to the fellowship. I am not paid nor funded by the fellowship (I was a fellow twice: 1st in the London meeting and then in Dublin). I think, as a widely declared alumni of the program, I have a lot of insight and experience to offer on this matter. I know the guts of the program since I’ve been collaborating with it for over 5 years as a community coach, endless free hours I gave to the program because I truly believe is a good program, I am not an opportunistic troll of your draft. You were a NextGen once, and alumni since then If my memory is correct, I would never think that gave you a conflict of interest. You accuse me of not being neutral as well, I don’t see what reason could I have to do that. I don't hold a fetiche at ICANN programs in my life. If they cease to exist, I will still live and ICANN will still exist, just less diverse, less populated and probably loose legitimacy, awareness and workforce in the global perspective.
>>>> 
>>>> All programs start small and grow if they are good, I don’t think 60, where 30 are alumni and 30 are new is beyond purpose. Is my opinion. Non the less, those numbers are before they cut half of their funds. So I don’t think we should be cutting MORE funds out of the program.
>>>> 
>>>> We have four fellows (Elsa, Martin, Arsene and Rafik) and one next gen (Ayden) sitting in the Council of 21 members (12 members elected by stakeholders that have fellows, since CPH has no fellows, only NCPH). Which means that the program has at least over a 1/3 of possible  fellow councilor in place (4/12 + 1 next gen).  I see fellows as well in Chair positions in NCUC and the NCUC ExCom, the NCSG EXCom and NCSG Policy committee, in the ISP ExCom and in the BC, in the RPMs and in the SubPro. Even in IPC, the recent diversity growth comes from fellows from Latin America and Eastern Europe (even South Africa !). 
>>>> 
>>>> The fact the programs have different ends and goals doesn’t prevent that some people could be good targets for both at different moments. I still judge them for what their goals are, and their are delivering.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope this clarifies my position. I will hold it in a council vote, so is better you know it beforehand.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Martín
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Feb 2019, at 17:05, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have had this language in our comment for over a month, and the Standing Committee has debated the merits of the fellowship and NextGen programs on our various calls. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I am honest, I find it frustrating that you would take your objection to our comment to the GNSO Council list rather than to our mailing list, when you are a member of this Standing Committee but have not been joining our calls. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have also not declared a conflict of interest, which I believe exists, in that you are an alumni of the fellowship program.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You disagree with my assertion that the Fellowship program has "grown very large." It has grown from 15 participants per meeting in 2014 to 60 participants per meeting in 2018. In 2017, there were meetings with greater than 60 fellows. It has grown in size.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You claim there is evidence that the program has led to greater engagement in GNSO policy work. I disagree, and ask that you link me to some evidence in support of this statement. Not personal anecdotes; evidence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I continue to maintain that there is an overlap between the NextGen and Fellowship programs. While we can disagree here, I think it is clear that there is some overlap if you look at the participant mix, and see how many NextGen participants go on to become Fellows once they are no longer eligible for NextGen funding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>> On Friday, February 1, 2019 2:56 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Because we don’t agree those are the facts. We can debate on that if you thing we can make it to the draft in time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - I don’t agree the "ICANN Fellowship program has grown very large”. Specially since they scale it down with the budget cuts.
>>>>>> - I don’t agree  "we have not yet seen evidence that the program is effective at leading to engagement in GNSO policy work”. The have plenty of evidence of Fellows working in GNSO.
>>>>>> - I don’t agree "The objectives of the NextGen at ICANN program significantly overlap with the ICANN Fellowship program.” They have different goal that do not overlap. This program aims at different segments and their on-site Onboarding differs, so is their obligations and reasons to be there. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Martín
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1 Feb 2019, at 16:50, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am responding here in my personal capacity.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why would we be silent on this matter? Bullets 1 and 2 contain factual statements.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ayden 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:13 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sorry for the silence, crazy days on the RPMs for me. In this very useful bullet point, I would eliminate number 1 and 2. I don’t think these programs need more comments from the budget perspective right now. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Martín
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jan 2019, at 20:50, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As you may be aware, two GNSO Councilors from the NCSG have raised concerns with the language in this paragraph of our comment on the budget:
>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council believes it is necessary for ICANN to seriously evaluate the future of all of its capacity development programs, particularly its Fellowship program, NextGen at ICANN program, Global Indigenous Ambassador program, ICANN Academy and various other activities to the At Large Advisory Committee, including the upcoming At Large Summit. There is a perception within the GNSO that these programs have become bloated and ineffective, and that ICANN is trying to do too much. We ask that these programs be brought down to a scale more appropriate given current financial constraints. Initiatives of the Constituencies that are targeted and delivering more direct increases in engagement are being curtailed in favor of these programs. We expect that various constituencies will express more detailed comments and provide concrete suggestions about the effectiveness of such programs to their own development of membership and engagement in policy development.
>>>>>>>>> Neither Councilor joined our call on Monday to propose alternative language. However, it was agreed by the SCBO participants on Monday's call to break this comment down into sub-bullets so that we could offer more precision and save the essence of this comment. In that spirit, I would like to propose that we replace the above paragraph with the following text:
>>>>>>>>> The GNSO Council believes it is necessary for ICANN to seriously evaluate the future of all of its capacity development programs:
>>>>>>>>> The ICANN Fellowship program has grown very large, but we have not yet seen evidence that the program is effective at leading to engagement in GNSO policy work. 
>>>>>>>>> The objectives of the NextGen at ICANN program significantly overlap with the ICANN Fellowship program. The only difference between the two is that the NextGen program accepts participants from 18 years of age, whereas the Fellowship accepts participants from the age of 21, and the NextGen program is regional, whereas the Fellowship program is global. As the NextGen program is struggling to recruit participants and Ambassadors, in large part because of the regional participant requirement, we would suggest it be folded into the Fellowship program.
>>>>>>>>> We do not understand why the ICANN Indigenous Ambassador program is separate from the ICANN fellowship program. Given their overlapping objectives and recent revisions to the Fellowship program application criteria that see it open to everyone regardless of nationality, we suggest these programs be merged.
>>>>>>>>> The ICANN Learn platform is outdated and under-utilized. While it may have the potential to train community members, we question whether further investment here is warranted given the lack of utilization and success to date. 
>>>>>>>>> The ICANN Academy has in the past attracted scrutiny for funding activities that do not seem appropriate in appearance for a non-profit in a precarious financial position. We would like to better understand what the plans are for the ICANN Academy in FY20, and to see what activities will be funded and why.
>>>>>>>>> The At Large Advisory Committee is over-resourced, unrepresentative of Internet end-users, and ineffective. We question the allocation of resources to this Advisory Committee, and in particular its lavish At Large Summit, given its failure to take seriously and to address the serious concerns raised in the recent At Large Review.
>>>>>>>>> There is a perception within the GNSO that these capacity development programs have become bloated and ineffective, and that ICANN is trying to do too much. We ask that these programs be brought down to a scale more appropriate given current financial constraints. Initiatives of the Constituencies that are targeted and delivering more direct increases in engagement are being curtailed in favor of these programs. We expect that various constituencies will express more detailed comments and provide concrete suggestions about the effectiveness of such programs to their own development of membership and engagement in policy development. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If you have any concerns with this new language or suggested edits, please can you advise on our mailing list within the next 24 hours. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-sc-budget/attachments/20190201/92ee1332/attachment-0001.html>