Draft Recommendation 2
|Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|| CG - Accept with modification: It is very important for recruiting programs to be continually evaluated and adjusted to ensure that the benefits warrant the costs. Rationale: Funds are limited so we should make sure that the benefits of recruiting programs are commensurate with the costs.|
|Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|
MK: Accept with modification. I would suggest changing it to 'Continue developing and funding more targeted programmes...' as there are already quite a few initiatives under way (or alternatively, provide a rationale as to why those initiatives are not considered contributing to this goal).
LG: Accept with modification. I would suggest expanding to include the establishment of performance measures to evaluate effectiveness of targeted programmes to recruit volunteers (Key Performance Indicators-KPIs, targets, phasing), If Rec.1 is intended to address this, then consider adding a clarification.
|Basis for Assessment:|
|Work In Progress:||GNSO Newcomers Webinar, GNSO Learn, Community Travel Support, WG online sign-up tool, enhancing volunteers (SO/AC initiative)|
|Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress:||Ongoing|
|Milestones:||Webinars timed to each ICANN Meeting, GNSO Learn modules to be launched after Buenos Aires, WG online-sign up tool|
|Responsibility:||GNSO Policy/Secretariat Staff/GNSO Council SG/C|
Public Comments Received
Recommendation 2 (Participation and Representation): Develop and fund more targeted programmes to recruit volunteers and broaden participation in PDP WGs, given the vital role volunteers play in Working Groups and policy development.
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
(Support) It is very important for recruiting programs to be continually evaluated and adjusted to ensure that the benefits warrant the costs. Any recruitment program must recognize the narrow nature of policy developed by the GNSO, and must also recognize the associated challenges. In most cases those most active in policy development activities have an interest in the outcome.
(Support) Growth in participation should nominally result from targeted outreach programs that grow the Support Organization and its Constituencies, rather than a targeted approach to simply get more individuals within WGs unless there are areas of specific expertise that don’t exist within those groups. Outreach directed at Constituencies is likely to be more sustainable than outreach for people to work in Working Groups. We want to poing out that, currently, there is no funding to support recruitment of volunteers to Working Groups, it’s possible that there shouldn’t be. Instead, Working Groups need to be made more inviting to dedicate time to. It was pointed out within the ATRT2 GNSO PDP Evaluation Study Final Report (2013) that the demands on regular participation are far too high and that; i) the ICANN community needs to examine the potential for alternative models in the PDP and ii) the current PDP also needs to be examined to find ways to break up the enormous commitment associated with WGs into component parts. Neither of those Recommendations has been followed up. That needs to happen and should be reflected within this report. Note: The ISPCP also has members who came through the Fellowship program. This is not reflected within the appropriate section (4.4.3) of the report.
Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo
Participation in ICANN policy development is not a remunerated position, and neither should it be. The BC believes that ICANN must be prudent when it considers recommendations calling on it to expend additional funds to encourage participation. While we agree that ICANN benefits from as diverse an expert participation as feasible, we do not agree with ICANN funds being used to compensate individuals for participation within the GNSO. A number of funding support schemes already exist, such as the CROPP fund, constituency outreach, Council onboarding training and the Fellowship Program. GNSO councilors and SG/C officers receive both free travel and accommodation for ICANN meetings, and travel support is also available for a number of intersessional and working group events. Additional expenditures must be tailored in such a way as to enhance/supplement the current funding ICANN provides.
Frankly, we feel we need more resources to help keep volunteers engaged. They need support, education, and travel money. The fellowship program is a great success, but the gap between being an interested fellow and a contributing volunteer is very wide. More resources and mentoring assistance would be helpful.
(It Depends) Additional outreach programs might not be necessary in lieu of improving and expanding upon the existing programs, and new programs certainly should not detract from existing outreach initiatives. Obviously, travel support for Working Group members or Chairpersons represents another way to increase participation, yet entails potential disadvantages as well. Precedent worth examining on travel funding for Working Group members presently exists within the country code Name Supporting Organization. IPC support for this recommendation may also depend upon the new meeting structures and whether these will facilitate or impede participation and representation.
It is vital that if funding is provided for “more targeted programmes to recruit volunteers”, that the beneficiaries of this program not be selected by ICANN (the corporation), but rather by the different groups within the community. This ensures equal benefit to the different stakeholder groups, as well as protecting ICANN from perceived ill intentions in its selection. The funding should not become part of a reward system in return for participation in PDP WGs.
(Support) Current programs do not necessarily benefit policy development because they mostly focus on bringing volunteers to an ICANN meeting without providing them necessary training to enhance their understanding of the policy development process and the policy content. As a result, volunteers cannot participate effectively in Working Groups.