• Accept As-Is
• Accept With modification
• Reject

Rationale:

MK: Accept with modification. Consider adding 'taking into account existing incentives such as the ICANN Academy, CROPP, GNSO Learn and the Ethos Award' as there are already initiatives that aim to increase the motivation of volunteers.

LG: Accept with modification.  Consider adding guidance on implementing means of evaluating effectiveness of various incentive systems (those already underway and any new ones that may develop.)

8

Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(It Depends) It is not clear that external incentives will motivate the types of volunteers who are needed in WGs. Working groups need people who can contribute different points of view on the relevant issues. If incentives are successful at increasing representation of stakeholders who are impacted by the issues under consideration or who have specific areas of experience and expertise needed by the WG, that would be a desirable outcome. But if such people do not have the time available to actively participate in a WG, the incentives might not matter. Training and development of potential participants could serve as an incentive for greater WG participation by lowering barriers. Recognition of individual contributions is always a good idea. The RySG believes that this recommendation should be further developed. More guidance about proposed “incentives”, financial or otherwise, would be helpful. Board-like support (with travel and associated expenses) is one but is not inconsequential. Stipends would also cast doubt on wether participants are still “volunteers.” Importantly, how would “the community” (and/or ICANN staff) assess we’re getting a good return on such investment? This could become politically messy. Regardless, it does not appear that any such provisions were made in the FY16 Budget, so any of this probably couldn’t happen for 12 months (at least). Provided that WGs have adequate representation from impacted parties in the GNSO and that WGs are not overrepresented by academic stakeholders, the RySG would like to point out that academic institutions may be a good source of interested parties for WG volunteers. Students in certain disciplines (e.g., international law, computer science, management, public policy, etc.) might be motivated to join WGs and thereby add new blood to the process. They might also be interested in additional training, with issuance of certificates, which could be helpful for such participants in future jobs. Passing of initial training courses for such a GNSO/ICANN ecosystem newcomers might be an initial test to be included in PDP development groups for apprentices from academic institutions to improve speed and quality of the process.

45

Osvaldo Novoa

ISPCP

(It Depends) In principle the ISPCP supports this Recommendation but within the report there is little detail on how opportunities would be developed or who they would be targeted towards. Similarly the intent to facilitate greater recognition of individuals also raises many questions that are not addressed within the report (who, what, how?). Without more information on the proposed approach it is difficult to offer firm support, even for an exploratory approach considering the current heavy workload facing ICANN participants and staff. Any incentive system effectiveness must be measured against some agreed metrics.

92

Etienne Sanz De Acedo, Lori Schulman

INTA

INTA agrees that the current strategies and programs should be developed to provide a more effective recruitment and training of volunteers from truly diverse backgrounds. The monitor of such metrics should be part of the ongoing efforts of the GNSO Council and not of other ICANN constituencies/SGs.

153

Anupam Agrawal

Internet Society, India Kolkata Chapter

On exploring the tailored incentive system to increase the motivation is also commendable.

164

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

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.

200

Stephanie Perrin

NCUC/NCSG

This is an interesting proposal, but we would need to hear more.

241

Greg Shatan

IPC

(Support) 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.

279

Amr Elsadr

Training and development would benefit from community participation in the details of what is required, as may be the terms and conditions of greater recognition.

315

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

ALAC

(Support) The ALAC strongly supports this and suggests that this should be done ICANN-wide, relying partly on the ICANN Academy which needs to be further developed. Perhaps the word “reward” better reflects what we are trying to do, rather than “incentive." The current recognition of dedicated ICANN volunteers below the Chair level is pathetic.