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

[Ayden Férdeline]

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> 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> 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/d672cc29/attachment.html>