[council] [EXTERNAL] Re: fellowship questionnaire response

Fri Apr 6 11:46:41 UTC 2018

It is not that I think the fellowship programme has been a complete failure. Of course it is easy to pick out anecdotes of where it has been successful. It is just that anecdotes do not tell the whole story. Of the 665 unique fellows that there have been over the past 10 years, many of which have been brought to at least 3 (if not more) ICANN meetings, I think they have not been integrated into the community, and certainly not into the GNSO's policy work.

I do not accept that there is a lack of metrics. There are no metrics being shared with us, but I believe ICANN does have internal metrics, because some were presented by the then fellowship coordinator during the newcomer's day presentation in Johannesburg -- and they were not flattering. They were presented as a 'call to action' for people to speak up more.

We have enough data to be able to say whether the programme has been effective or not. We have 10 years of evidence; the names of the fellowship alumni, the names of those in leadership roles, attendance records from working group calls. We could, if we wanted to, assess whether the programme has been successful at "creat[ing] a broader base of knowledgeable constituents to engage in the ICANN multistakeholder process", which is the goal stated on the ICANN website. It is my view that to some extent the programme has been successful in developing knowledgeable constituents, but that it has been unsuccessful in leading them to engage in ICANN processes.

Anyway, this will be my last message on this issue, because ultimately, the fellowship programme is inexpensive and there are bigger issues for us to deal with.

Best wishes,

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 6 April 2018 7:37 AM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> wrote:

> Hi Ayden
>
> During my time on the Council we have had a number of really valued contributors that I understand came to us via the fellowship program and I think we should acknowledge this.
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the fellowship program as a complete and utter failure (my interpretation of the many posts to this list about the program). I don’t subscribe to that theory. Having been around at the time that the program was developed and implemented, I believe the program has been successful in meeting its original objectives. I do agree that the program has probably reached a point of diminishing returns, but of course the lack of metrics make it almost impossible to determine whether this is the case or levels of success. To that end, it’s time to revisit the goals and objectives and develop meaningful performance metrics.
>
> On Q16, I read your observations as suggesting that people are somehow gaming the two programs in order to receive ongoing support to attend ICANN meetings, which if true is concerning. However, if it is being done within the current rules, then perhaps the rules should be reviewed to remove any such possibility.
>
> I would prefer that Council comments are constructive and objective. To do this, I think Michele is on point: our comments should be about the overall lack of metrics.
>
> Donna
>
> From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 2:35 PM
> To: philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
>
> In principle I have no objection to the Council noting that two current Councillors are fellowship alumni, however I do not want us to over-inflate the value of the fellowship programme. Is it an anomaly or fluke that two fellowship alumni are currently Councillors, has this been a typical trend for several years now, or is this simply a sign of the maturity of the programme that with the passage of time participants are going on into more and more leadership positions? I don't know the answer to this - and if no one on the list does either, perhaps we should condition our statement by noting that correlation does not necessarily imply causation... Simply being a Councillor does not, in my opinion, necessarily provide evidence for the success of the fellowship programme. There are all different kinds of Councillors; some provide more valuable inputs than others, and for the fellowship programme to be held up as some kind of success story, we need a way of measuring the performance of our Councillors so that we can compare those who have been fellows with those who have entered ICANN through other avenues. Of course we should not go down that rabbit hole in this comment; but all the same, I do not want us to oversell the outcomes of the fellowship programme. Thank you.
>
> Regarding question 16, I have observed a disturbing trend whereby one participates in the NextGen programme, then serves subsequently as a NextGen ambassador, and then becomes a fellow three times, a fellow coach another three times (yes, fellows coach themselves), then a senior fellow coach three times, and in theory, they could then become a booth lead. I say 'in theory' because while I am aware of fellows who have exhausted that programme, been coaches and senior coaches, and gone on to become booth leads, I do not know of any NextGen alumni who have done this. But I think it would be possible. The NextGen and fellowship programmes are meant to be separate and distinct. I find it very problematic that there is an overlap of participants between the two tracks, and so I do wonder if they could be amalgamated into the one programme.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On 5 April 2018 4:55 PM, <philippe.fouquart at orange.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree, (it’s useful to be sometimes.); the text makes some good points in that respect.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:43 PM
>> To: FOUQUART Philippe IMT/OLN; Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
>>
>> One of the key issues with this entire thing is the overall lack of metrics
>>
>> (Sorry if I’m repetitive)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Michele
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>
>> Blacknight Solutions
>>
>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>>
>> [https://www.blacknight.com/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=fxure3oxue4Q3v3dXCbQEprIlbtDYRhdIrHBkdcEUpo&e=)
>>
>> [http://blacknight.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=wlfvSjoTVNO9xxE8DkG7LhEING1IlRZOHyUxlIbN3jE&e=)
>>
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>>
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>
>> Personal blog: [https://michele.blog/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=LR0I4A2nEogchcdZVg71Z88A9dsGQEMwmmT-nrjOtbE&e=)
>>
>> Some thoughts: [https://ceo.hosting/](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=7CoeGANuAgzP1P_fC_8GwxGsSHw7tMitdGEpioWKqQ8&s=l4kHX9_3KPZyJZ9kp0cXgUr2hCxNxkZSmFgwGnbTzgA&e=)
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>>
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>
>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart at orange.com" <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
>> Date: Thursday 5 April 2018 at 15:40
>> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] fellowship questionnaire response
>>
>> [Colleagues,]
>>
>> Thanks very much to the editing team, I think this is a balanced and most helpful input to the “consultation”. As an aside, I noted during our San Juan meeting that the ISPCP developed an answer and it’s quite consistent with what we have here.
>>
>> I have two comments.
>>
>> - I also think we should include Donna’s comment re. Council having fellowship alumni in its current/past membership. GNSO constituencies are likely to note this in their response; it would be odd for Council itself not to. Maybe under Question 2. just say something factual like “For example, the GNSO council currently has two members who benefitted from the fellowship program”. (side comment: 4 has “While there has been some evidence of former fellows becoming GNSO Councillors”, I’m not sure about the “evidence”: either they have been councilors or they haven’t, but maybe that’s just my English…:)
>>
>> - Regarding Question #16, if my reading of the criteria is correct, the potential overlap between fellowship and NextGen at ICANN is the extent to which Fellowship is granted to under 30 under/postgrad/PhD students (who may/should fall under NextGen at ICANN).
>>
>> - If that number is zero then there can be no overlap, the two things serve separate audiences (maybe there’s a discussion to have as to whether the audience is relevant to ICANN’s work but that wasn’t the question),
>>
>> - if that number is high however, the potential overlap is significant, given that the expected inputs from those two groups of participants may indeed overlap according to the programs.
>>
>> I haven’t got the figures in that respect and maybe seeking clarification as to the number of fellowship recipients who might have qualified for nextgen would be useful or something to point out as a “metric” to monitor moving forward.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>> From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:33 AM
>> To: Austin, Donna
>> Cc: Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] fellowship questionnaire response
>>
>> Hi Donna,
>>
>> Thanks for the comment, I think we can add that acknowledgment if you have a text ready.
>>
>> we still have the Question #16 to resolve with the 2 options available.
>>
>> as a reminder, I think the deadline for submitting is Friday 6th April.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2018-04-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>:
>>
>> Thanks Rafik and the small team who worked on this response for the Council.
>>
>> I appreciate the narrow focus on PDPs because that is area of responsibility for the council and the need for meaningful metrics; however, I think it might also be helpful to acknowledge that the Council has been well-served by the Fellowship Program by way of a number of our Councilors coming to us via the program, for example our current councilors, Martin and Arsene. I don’t see any downside to acknowledging the value of the program from this perspective.
>>
>> Donna
>>
>> From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 4:27 PM
>> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] fellowship questionnaire response
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please find attached the latest version of the draft response to the fellowship questionnaire. It went through several revisions based on previous council comments and discussion within the small team. We are looking forward your input regarding the overall draft to be endorsed as council comment and making changes as needed.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>
>>
>>
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>
>>
>>
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>
>>
>>
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>
>>
>>
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>
>>
>>
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180406/0ccf2e1b/attachment-0001.html>