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

[Tom Barrett]

I agree with this approach

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 3:50 PM Ayden Férdeline <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:
>
>
>    1. 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.
>    2. 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.
>    3. 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.
>    4. 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.
>    5. 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.
>    6. 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190130/6d9ac0de/attachment-0001.html>