FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
ALAC COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT “Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach”
July 2018
The ALAC is very grateful to have the opportunity to comment on the draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach. We have detailed our suggestions and comments in the sections proposed in the draft for ease of reference.
Application
We would encourage all Fellows to join and engage with their Regional At-Large group not only as a general introduction to ICANN but also to its international, organizational policy development and other decision-making processes.
Membership of their RALO would also provide prospective Fellows especially, with a support group for any questions as they may have as they complete their online ICANN Learn Course.
- The application process should provide for the diversity of language so that it does not dissuade prospects from applying because of their lack of English.
- Application policies should encourage applications from those who identify themselves from other diverse sections within the community.
- There should be special consideration given to any applicants with a disability and/or specific needs.
- There should be consideration given to applicants from global indigenous communities to apply as first time Fellows. Subsequently, they would have to meet the criteria for returning fellowships, along with other second/third-time Fellows.
- Selected Fellows from these categories should be provided with a special mentor each (from among the senior Fellows) to support their introduction to the programme and to ICANN.
- Regional GSE representatives need to make themselves known at events they attend, to encourage more Fellows applications and At-Large memberships from among the technical community.
Selection Criteria
- The Fellowship Dashboard on the ICANN Stakeholder Tool V7, lists previous Fellows and could be used as a reference to ensure that there is fair representation of geographic as well as other forms of diversity.
- We would also suggest that the Fellowship Programme takes advantage of the huge pool of talent within our current At-Large Structures, especially among those who would benefit from the experience and understanding gained by their further integration through the fellowship programme.
- Given the significant focus on policy activities within the ICANN community, the Fellowship Program should ensure that Fellows are willing and able to contribute to the policy work within their specific SO/AC/SG/RALO.
- While the metrics in the proposed draft are quite comprehensive, it omits " # applications by region and fellows selected by gender and any other diversity factors that would move ICANN towards greater global inclusion".
- The demographics of unsuccessful Fellowship candidates - especially what countries they came from, are seen as useful. Unsuccessful applicants would appreciate a feedback sheet reinforcing criteria that are important to Fellows' selection, so that they can plan future opportunities.
On-Site
- Important that Fellow mentor-coaches have good general knowledge about ICANN and are active participants in ICANN already - involved in policy and/or organisational working groups so that they can give appropriate guidance based on experience of the system and its processes. The mentor/coach may not necessarily have to have been a Fellow previously.
- There should be a limit to the number of times a Fellow can be a mentor-coach to give others an opportunity for leadership.
- It would be expected that Fellows would have joined their RALOs following their first Fellowship. Second/third-time Fellows should be scheduled onto the RALO booth at their next meeting, to promote their region. They could also support DNS Women and other side events available and of interest to end-users at the ICANN meeting.
- SO/ACs should contribute both to the development and implementation of a programme for Fellows at ICANN meetings where Fellows can suitably observe their constituency of choice and decide on how they might become engaged. More involvement by the SO/ACs on onsite activities is seen as critical to early engagement by the Fellows.
- SO/ACs may wish to consider ways in which to more formally engage and interact with Fellows during their meetings. This might mean the allocation of a role for the Fellows, including possibly serving as a rapporteur or preparing a summary of a meeting.
- SO/ACs should allocate some time specifically for interaction and feedback from Fellows, possibly as part of the Fellowship wrap-up session.
Post-Meeting Requirements
- The specific focuses for each fellowship level offer different levels of outreach which will further help with each Fellow’s development as ICANN participants.
- SO/ACs may wish to invite Fellows to relevant meetings or other means of continued communication as part of post-meeting follow up.
- An extended timeframe of perhaps a year between fellowships (or 6 months for those who have been engaged in policy already in ICANN) plus relevant metrics will help to provide a gauge of both the impact and effectiveness of the Fellow's outreach as well as an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment by actually joining up with a constituency and getting involved in the interim.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
ALAC COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT “Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach”
July 2018
The ALAC is very grateful to have the opportunity to comment on the draft Proposal of the new Fellowship Approach. We have detailed our suggestions and comments in the sections proposed in the draft for ease of reference
Application
We would encourage all Fellows to join and engage with their Regional At-Large group not only as a general introduction to ICANN but also to its international, organizational policy development and other decision-making processes.
Membership of their RALO would also provide prospective Fellows especially, with a support group for any questions as they may have as they complete their online ICANN Learn Course.
- The application process should provide for the diversity of language so that it does not dissuade prospects from applying because of their lack of English.
- Application policies should encourage applications from those who identify themselves from other diverse sections within the community.
- There should be special consideration given to any applicants with a disability and/or specific needs.
- There should be consideration given to applicants from global indigenous communities to apply as first time Fellows. Subsequently, they would have to meet the criteria for returning fellowships, along with other second/third-time Fellows.
- Selected Fellows from these categories should be provided with a special mentor each (from among the senior Fellows) to support their introduction to the programme and to ICANN.
- Regional GSE representatives need to make themselves known at events they attend, to encourage more Fellows applications and At-Large memberships from among the technical community.
Selection Criteria
- The Fellowship Dashboard on the ICANN Stakeholder Tool V7, lists previous Fellows and could be used as a reference to ensure that there is fair representation of geographic as well as other forms of diversity.
- We would also suggest that the Fellowship Programme takes advantage of the huge pool of talent within our current At-Large Structures, especially among those who would benefit from the experience and understanding gained by their further integration through the fellowship programme.
- Given the significant focus on policy activities within the ICANN community, the Fellowship Program should ensure that Fellows are willing and able to contribute to the policy work within their specific SO/AC/SG/RALO.
- While the metrics in the proposed draft are quite comprehensive, it omits " # applications by region and fellows selected by gender and any other diversity factors that would move ICANN towards greater global inclusion".
- The demographics of unsuccessful Fellowship candidates - especially what countries they came from, are seen as useful. Unsuccessful applicants would appreciate a feedback sheet reinforcing criteria that are important to Fellows' selection, so that they can plan future opportunities.
On-site
- Important that Fellow mentor-coaches have good general knowledge about ICANN and are active participants in ICANN already - involved in policy and/or organisational working groups so that they can give appropriate guidance based on experience of the system and its processes. The mentor/coach may not necessarily have to have been a Fellow previously.
- There should be a limit to the number of times a Fellow can be a mentor-coach to give others an opportunity for leadership.
- It would be expected that Fellows would have joined their RALOs following their first Fellowship. Second/third-time Fellows should be scheduled onto the RALO booth at their next meeting, to promote their region. They could also support DNS Women and other side events available and of interest to end-users at the ICANN meeting.
- SO/ACs should contribute both to the development and implementation of a programme for Fellows at ICANN meetings where Fellows can suitably observe their constituency of choice and decide on how they might become engaged. More involvement by the SO/ACs on onsite activities is seen as critical to early engagement by the Fellows.
- SO/ACs may wish to consider ways in which to more formally engage and interact with Fellows during their meetings. This might mean the allocation of a role for the Fellows, including possibly serving as a rapporteur or preparing a summary of a meeting.
- SO/ACs should allocate some time specifically for interaction and feedback from Fellows, possibly as part of the Fellowship wrap-up session.
Post-meeting requirements
- The specific focuses for each fellowship level offer different levels of outreach which will further help with each Fellow’s development as ICANN participants.
- SO/ACs may wish to invite Fellows to relevant meetings or other means of continued communication as part of post-meeting follow up.
- An extended timeframe of perhaps a year between fellowships (or 6 months for those who have been engaged in policy already in ICANN) plus relevant metrics will help to provide a gauge of both the impact and effectiveness of the Fellow's outreach as well as an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment by actually joining up with a constituency and getting involved in the interim.
130 Comments
Maureen Hilyard
To start the ball rolling, and in consultation with my O&E colleagues:
Application:
Selection :
Pre-meeting preparation:
On-Site
Post-meeting requirements
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Thanks Maureen for sharing this. Following the information on the Fellowship Dashboard - it provides a regional distribution of the previous fellows. These can also contribute to the Fellowship selection Criteria
Nadira Alaraj
Thank you Maueen for your draft.
Regarding your point on coaches/mentors: " yet who were not eligible to apply for Fellowships themselves. "
My understanding of the proposed model, they are appointed by the SOs/ACs and their travel support will be covered by the fellowship program.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Nadira.. it was to explain why these SO/AC mentors are volunteering to work with the Fellowship despite not being able to apply for Fellowships themselves in the past - because they lived in developed countries or territories of a developed country. They therefore entered ICANN directly, but are happy to be mentors, as you say, to speed up the learning curve of the new fellows. The proposal also assumes that they are already going to be at the meeting because they are being covered by their constituency.
Nadira Alaraj
The proposed model will continue covering the SOs/ACs mentors as part of the fellowship program and there is no were it mentioned or assumed that they will be covered by their constituency. As we can see in the proposed three columns table.
Maureen Hilyard
That is interesting. We will ask to get clarification on that. interesting that ICANN would add that in while taking it away from other At-Large areas like CROP and expect that one of the 3 slots that they are giving, must go to sending someone to an ICANN meeting.
Judith Hellerstein
Hi Maureen and Nadira, Many of the folks who have this deep experience and would indeed like to be mentors are not currently funded and so would need funding. It has not worked out so well when we have used mentors who are funded as Ralo Leaders as we did in the Onboarding Pilot. The fellows suffered as these people were already overloaded and had no real time to give to their mentees. Research has shown that we need to give separate funding to these people so that they can set aside time to provide the mentorship and coaching fellows need.
Alan Greenberg
Judith, note that it was an explicit ALAC/Regional leaders decision to take our two onboarding slots and NOT use them as planned. The two slots were for a person to be onboarded and for a mentor (with no other responsibilities). We chose to instead bring in two people to be onboarded and an already travel-funded mentor.
We have taken such decisions several times.
If that did not work out, we should remember that next time we have a comparable decision.
Judith Hellerstein
Alan, I realize this. I think and others think that this way did not work out well. so we should remember this for next time.
Sarah Kiden
Thank you, Maureen Hilyard for getting this started. I will make a more detailed statement later, though I wanted to inquire about something I asked during the Panama meeting. Since the fellowship is generally designed for underrepresented persons, will it not be a challenge to start specifically pointing out specific groups? In my opinion, specifying persons with disabilities is enough. The other categories should compete fairly, lest we get into a challenge of having to specify different underrepresented groups. What do you think?
Alfredo Calderon
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Alfredo and Daniel. thank you for your contributions which I have incorporated into the original document. Hopefully more ideas will come from At-Large in support of the development of the Fellowship programme.
Nadira Alaraj
Here too, I support Alfredo, Daniel,
I do agree with the language barrier does hinder applicants from non-English speaking countries. It is reality and it has to be dealt with.
As Daniel pointed out to the dashboard it mentions the selected fellows distribution, but it doesn't provide the applicants' country distribution.
Hence it is good to provide a comment to the new proposed model, to make public the breakdown statistics -or standard metric- on an annual basis of the number of applicants per country verses the accepted fellows per country.
This metric will serve the purpose for targeted GSE outreach events and it will also identify countries with lower applicants and I expect most of them are the non-English speaking countries.
Maureen Hilyard
The Fellowship summary page identifies Fellows, their country and RALO as well as how many fellowships they have had and the meetings that they attended as fellows.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qKIDXTHNPKAXGwo2V36ZZSrml158j89w9k-mu3BpEno/edit#gid=1305174256
You can check each country individually for the names of the fellows from that country and the meetings they attended,
Nadira Alaraj
Thanks Maureen, I know about this it is from Dev and Glenn. However it only shows what Daniel has mentioned "only Selected fellows", It doesn't show the country distribution of all applicants.
All what we found in the fellowship announcement is the total number of different countries but it doesn't list what countries and what is the count of their distribution. Having a metric that shows how the applicants' countries distribution would show which countries needed to be reached out and analyse why we don't have applicant from certain countries.
Nadira Alaraj
My suggested proposed applicant metrics will be added under the proposed metrices
Sarah Kiden
Nadira Alaraj if I get you correctly, probably at the time of announcement, it could be mentioned that X fellows were selected from Y number of countries. Z number of applications were received from Y countries. Or something along those lines.
Nadira Alaraj
Judith Hellerstein
HI Maureen,
Excellent comments. I would add that we need to make sure that ICANN Learn course are accessible to people with disabilities and specific needs. People with accessibility challenges should be sought out by icann to test the materials. Recently we found found out that ISOC's learn programs were not accessibile to people with screen readers. This puts a large stumbling block before this group who we want to encourage to get involved. Also we need to make sure that all videos are captioned so all people can use them.
For Fellows-- the current rule is that they can be coaches after only one experience in ICANN and I think that is not effective. As you and others state it takes a few fellowships to be able to be knowledgeable enough and involved enough in ICANN to be a good coach.
2) there is a rule that people who have not been fellows cannot be coaches. I feel that this is misguided since it prevents many good people from being coaches. Several people, such as myself, had the fellowship route closed to use because we lived in developed countries before the rules changed. I would loved to mentor people and have done this on a volunteer basis but am precluded from being a supported coach.
3) I think there should be some limit to how many times a person can be a coach. It seems that there is no limit. you are limited to 3 times as a fellow but no limit on number of times you can be a coach
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
I agree with Judith, I do not think one Experience is adequate for a fellow to become a coach, it comes with the experience of how the fellow has transitioned and gained experience in the PDP process.
Personally, I have never been a fellow but I feel there is more that can be contributed to the fellowship program from non-fellows.
Judith Hellerstein
Maureen Hilyard I thought you were going to weave these ideas, 1) getting rid of the requirement that coaches need to first be fellows, 2) adding a requirement that fellows have 2 fellowships before they can apply to be a coach, and 3) limit the number of times a person can be a coachinto the draft statement. I do not see them there.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Judith.. The amended sections have been passed to staff to create a second draft including those new sections that we developed. I am hoping it will be up very soon so that we can have a final look through and check what we have said. Anything that is in the "Amendments" section below has been incorporated into the initial draft. Staff will get onto it as soon as they can.
Abdulkarim Ayopo Oloyede
Dear Maureen and Judith,
Based on previous comments and the other arguments for and against I disagree with 1, 2 and 3 above. They do not reflect the comments and I do not think they should be added. Thanks
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Abdulkarim.. If you look through the comments in other sections, there is some agreement among the group that fellows need not necessarily have to have been fellows previously to make good mentor/coaches. The issue about fellows not being able to be mentor/coaches after one fellowship is variable as some Fellows have actually been engaged in ICANN for some time before they apply for Fellowships, but more to find out about other sections, or specifically to be mentor/coaches. Different reasons. That mentor/coaches should be time-limited is more to allow for more leadership sharing. But there were enough people who agreed and less that didn't agree to ensure that some mention is made in our collective comment about this matter. But thank you for contributing your view.
David Morar
As much as I still think this not going to be useful for the fellows themselves, it would be useful to see what the proposed draft (we're commenting on) actually calls for: no more coaches just SO/AC mentors. Not sure if these would eat up the space for allotted fellowship positions since it's not clear. So maybe it would be good to revise that part of our comment. Unless we are in fact arguing for the reinstatement of coaches that are funded. Also, there is no age limit for the fellowship, so saying others are of the needed age but are more involved and can't apply is misleading.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi David.. the overview of responsibilities and expectations (p2) specifically mentions "SO/AC-specific mentors would replace Coaches; role open to all experienced community members, not just former fellows" so that is in place and the comments view this as a good thing. As you say its not clear how many but I assume a decision will be made by the selection committee. I am also assuming that they will be funded by the programme (but this is not stated). One of the things we have had problems with is if a coach is funded by another constituency there is a conflict of roles when that group gets priority for time, and the Fellow is left in the lurch. So considering the expectations I would say that the SO/AC mentor will be funded by the programme to give the Fellow/s the full treatment expected of them. Age is not really a factor. I'd like to think that Fellows wouldn't mind an old lady like me as a coach
if I offered.
David Morar
The age thing I was mentioning was this in our comments : While it has been general practice that only former Fellows are coaches, it must not be ignored, that there are several participants of the stated age group for Fellows who are already very active and very knowledgeable about At-Large involvements,
(there is no state age group for fellows)
Maureen Hilyard
Sorry David, I was confusing Fellows criteria with Next Gen when I wrote that
.
Prospective members of the NextGen@ICANN program must be:
Participants of the Fellowship Program must:
Sarah Kiden
Judith Hellerstein I hope you read the comments from David Morar about Coaches. When I joined the fellowship, we didn't have Coaches so you sort of figured things out on your own. The idea of Coaches was for someone who had been to an ICANN meeting before to share their experience and help you navigate the maze. To quote David "New fellows look to their coaches to help them navigate the program (which, by the way, if done right, is a full-time experience at the meetings), understand what is asked of them, etc."
I still believe that we can retain the Coaches and get already funded travelers to be mentors and leave the 45 slots for the fellowship. Just my suggestion.
Judith Hellerstein
I was not saying get rid of the coaches. I think the coaches is a great idea. I was just saying that the fellowship should allow people with significnat icann experience to become coaches even if they were never fellows. Some of us were not eligible to be fellows when we started out and want the opportunity to mentor fellows and also get funding to attend the meeting. As you say: The idea of Coaches was for someone who had been to an ICANN meeting before to share their experience and help you navigate the maze. I would be happy to mentor people and have done so already as a volunteer but the rules are inflexible and do not allow for people like myself to apply to be a coach. We need to apply first as fellows. Since we are very knowledgeable about ICANN and have been to many meetings we will be passed over for a fellows spot. I feel that is the right decision, but at the same time with the unflexible rules, us expereinced people cannot be a coach and receive a coach funding. The best outcome is to drop this rule and let experienced people from Developed countries become coaches just like everyone else. So we are really insynch. Experience has shown that asking people who are already RALO Leaders or ALAC and who are overloaded with their volunteer roles to mentor 2-3 people results in lower quality mentorship.
David Morar
So, here's where I have a problem. The mentorship role is not just for navigating ICANN, it's about navigating the program as well, ESPECIALLY now that it's significantly more structured. Wanting to reduce the potential numbers of fellow coaches (by making it mandatory to have done two fellowships) AND increase non-fellowship coaches is not consistent. How better to show involvement and commitment to the program and to ICANN as a fellow than to mentor people in the fellowship program? In fact, I think it should be one of the metrics, about if they mentored others as coaches. And the program should promote that.
This feels more like a travel funding thing than a mentorship thing. Community coaches can be a thing without cutting into fellowship funding. How can one coach you through the experience of the Fellowship program when they haven't gone through it themselves? The coach idea within the program is a strength. Asking for it to be stretched and distorted doesn't help much. Again, I can't speak for the fellowship community, but I don't think people in the program would be very jazzed about the suggestion. I fully agree with Sarah and Abdulkarim. The, already smaller, number of slots should be entirely for the program. Not outside people using it to come to the meetings. You need to understand the fellowship program before you can coach somebody within it. It's not just about knowing your way around ICANN, it's about being part of the program.
Judith Hellerstein
GSE reps need to work with all RALOS closely and keep an intake list of everyone they speak to. If they have a booth they need to instruct the people manning the booth to collect names. As the GSE and the RALOS need to work closely now for our outreach plans this is esential for tracking our outreach initiatives.
I very much like your idea of reserving some of the slots in the fellowship for people from indigenous communities and from the dsiabilities and specific needs as these people are often overlooked. There are specific cultural issues which may limit the number of applications so it may require a slightly different approach and also they also may require a slightly different mentoring or coaching experience. They should be matched with a person that best matches their specific needs and can best communicate with them in a langauge that is most appropriate to them
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
In AFRALO, GSE has shared a booth with AFRALO. The Outreach Strategy has to be developed in collaboration with the Regional GSE.
Judith Hellerstein
I very much spport this idea!! it will greatly help with diversity and engagement. Coaches should work with the fellows after each meeting and see how they can help them find the right constituency or constituencies within ICANN for them to engage and become active.
These are great thought
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you Judith. I hope I have incorporated your ideas appropriately.
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Is there a follow-up mechanism to monitor the fellow after the Fellowship meeting? there is a need to know the level of engagement in the processes. Some fellows after fellowship just go back and relax and there is no substantial contribution after the meeting.
Alfredo Calderon
Great points from all. I agree that metrics must be establish to determine if fellows qualify for a 2nd or 3rd fellowship. It seems like some believe that a non-fellow can benefit newcomers and individuals in the Fellowship Program. I would agree if these individuals that volunteer undergo a sort of training program to deal with empathy, andragogy, effective communication, multicultural diversity issues.
Judith Hellerstein
Hi Alfredo, some of us already have this experience and also have taken those leadership courses, but are told we cannot be a coach since we were never a fellow. We are too experienced to apply as a fellow since the evaluators want to select new people who can benefit the most.
Alfredo Calderon
Hello to all. Judith, understood. Probably an amendment to the rules could be to allow 'volunteers that meet the requirements of a coach, except those having been a past fellow, can with travel support from other sources be in a pool of possible coaches for ICANN meetings". This would maximize the funding available to engage individuals at each regional meeting.
Judith Hellerstein
HI Alfredo, it would allow people who do not have travel support but years of experience to apply directly to be a coach/mentor and be evaluated on their experience.
David Morar
Good Evening,
As a fellow and alum (but not a coach) I can tell you that knowledge about ICANN is only half of the puzzle. New fellows look to their coaches to help them navigate the program (which, by the way, if done right, is a full-time experience at the meetings), understand what is asked of them, etc. Changing the coach position to one of "community mentor" would only work if that community mentor also has gone through the program. It's not an issue of elitism, or trying to promote from within, rather it's an issue of understanding not just ICANN but also the program itself. If the program is changed fundamentally, I would say that my comment may seem moot, but I would urge you to not try to fix what's not broken (the coaching experience). Also, adding an artificial deadline for the coach position (more than just one meeting) is a bit pointless. Not sure if any fellows have complained about their coaches in order to make this part of what ALAC puts forth as comments (if that is the case then it definitely needs to be revised). The program staff and the committee have done a fabulous job in picking coaches, even those with only one meeting under their belts. I am positive that a lot of people with one or more meetings as experience have applied for a coach position and did not get it.
As for the metrics, I think it's important to not just add metrics on the backside of the program, but make them visible and important from the beginning. Recruit for the program through the prism of what the program will be measuring. Metrics should be built into the structure of the program, and be part of the experience for the fellows, to know what they are going to need in order for their time with the fellowship to count. For that, fundamental questions need to be answered about how the program is being reshaped.
Thank you all for your feedback. As a member of the fellowship family, I know how hard we all fought to let people know that the program is not just a "travel" plan, but an actual community of people that are or want to be involved in IG, and I think that what's important is for that energy to be sustained and used by each AC/SO to inform their comments.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi David, great to hear from a Fellow. I can understand your perspective about the use of fellow coaches, and it is a credit to the programme that the Fellowship is able to provide quality mentor-coaches from within their system. We didn't have mentor-coaches in my day. We relied on each other within the fellowship group to sink or swim together. But it was fun. Recent criticisms about the Fellowship have come from people within ICANN who question multiple fellowships simply for mentor-coaching, especially when we have still to see many of these senior Fellows fully engaging with any constituency group themselves. This is seen by some to be contrary to what the Fellowship is supposed to be about.
What is being suggested above is that third year Fellows could perhaps get a friendly introduction to the real world of ICANN (depending on your constituency of interest) with someone (a non-fellow) from within the constituency ranks who is keen to introduce and encourage our newbies to become familiar with their work and to engage with them. For us, its just one way that as a constituency we can actively support the Fellowship programme. But we still need to work on other ways to help familiarise Fellows a lot more quickly than we have in the past. .
Metrics are going to become part and parcel of every programme, including our own in At-Large. Because of budget cuts all round, ICANN is going to require numbers/stats to help to justify any funding in the future. This will impact the Fellowship as well as every constituency in ICANN. Our outreach support has been drastically cut, so that we are going to become more reliant on Fellows and our ALS groups to do a lot of work for At-Large and ICANN in their national and regional centres. But there are lots of ways that we can work on these type of activities together, so we will need your input even more. Thank you for joining this conversation and I hope that you will join us in other conversations and discussions in the future.
David Morar
Thank you very much for your reply. I definitely understand the criticisms of the fellowship program and I'm sure there are, in fact, people that are using it not how it was designed.
My response was to the idea that the notion of Coach should be redefined to include non-Alums. On the contrary, having mentors from the community is very much beneficial! I do think it should happen sooner than third year. I think this could be something that happens with second time fellows. If they are coaches, they would get mentorship as well, if they aren't coaches, then a fellow coach and a community mentor would also be beneficial, since they would offer complementary perspectives.
As for metrics, I think they're very important. My comment was along the lines of proposing to add metrics throughout the program, make them visible, and an integral part of the application process, not just slapping on post-fact metrics.
As soon as I'm done with my PhD dissertation and sleep for a couple of days, I'll be more than willing to participate further, along Alfredo and other RALO-affiliated fellows to help bring the fellowship program into a new phase.
Judith Hellerstein
HI David, I was speaking about people who are already mentoring others but because they came from a developed country before the rules changed they could not be mentors. It is fairly easy for an established person who is familiar with several of the constituencies to review the coaches guidelines and learn what is needed, especially if they had already been volunteer coaches or assistance coaches for fellows.
Judith Hellerstein
Is the fellowship dashboard Dev's stakeholder analysis document?
Maureen Hilyard
Yes, I have clarified this a bit more..
Nadira Alaraj
Thank you David, Maureen and Judith for your comment with regards to the mentors.
Before getting on the point of mentors we have to understand the main objective of the fellowship program. The SOs/ACs wanted potential fellows who would be able to contribute to the PDP. Those potential fellows needed an experienced mentors who got first hand in policy writing and have understanding the work of cross-community.
The proposed model recommend to have an experienced mentors who can provide the good guidance to speed up the learning curve of the new fellow.
Abdulkarim Ayopo Oloyede
Hi,
I agree that coaches ( previous fellows or non-fellows) should work with fellows before and after the meeting but I think a fellow should be paired with a coach who lives within a range of (similar) time zone to the fellow. This is actually a problem for some fellows, as it was difficult for them to have an online meeting with their coach because they simply can't work out an agreeable time for everyone.
Secondly, one experience of being a fellow does not mean lack of experience in ICANN. You sometimes learn more about ICANN better by joining the mailing groups and attending online meetings than face to face meetings at times. Secondly being a fellow once does not mean the person has only attended one face to face meeting. Therefore, I think being a fellow once is enough for SOME people to be a coach or even a mentor.
Glenn McKnight
Greetings
I think Maureen you have done a great job on providing constructive feedback on improving the fellowship programme vs those who what to throw out the baby with the dishwater.
A few observations
-Endorse the idea of being more inclusive to the Indigenous and People with Special Needs. They are part of our community and we need to include them in the fellowship program. The fellowship programme has been the gate way drug into ICANN. The lack of representation at the Fellowship translates into their absence in the community and we don't hear their valuable voices in policy
-Since a significant number of fellows are identified as ATLARGE or Civil Society the RALO's should be part of the selection committee. I go farther and say that the fellows should come from the ALS's . These folks would be familar with ICANN and have been polled on their interests and are primed for specific policy issues. Vast majority of the Fellows based on their own survey shows that the fellows disappeared
-Limits on number of fellowships and coaching. Dev's Global Stakeholder Tool( Ignored by the staff but recently praised by Mary Wong and David Olive) reveals the shortfalls and the excessive number to certain individuals. The lack of transparency by ICANN isn't acceptable. Not convinced that the repeat coaches were selected on their knowledge or a popularity contest. Regardless, Judith point is when you ignore willing and able people in Atlarge as coaches you are missing the reason you have a coach.
-Community outreach. At each ICANN meeting we do a RALO outreach booth and a showcase. As an active volunteer I don't recall any fellow except Alfredo (Coach) who volunteered ( Again another example of a ISOC PR member -NARALO ALS and a NASIG Faculty member who understands deeply the ecoystem. The fellows mob the ICANN booth and again and again Heidi, Tijani and I had to ask for the ATLARGE brochures to be on display. The ICANN Booth has been dominated by NCUC people and the other fellows are warm bodies.
-New ATLARGE Membership from the Fellowship. No one has monitored this or provided solid stats that fellows become Atlarge members. You can't ignore the NCUC recruitment strategy.( Lets not focus on the few stars) At the fellowship cocktail reception the NCUC folks are front and centre . Atlarge is largely absent except for a few of us. ( I photograph the event so I can verify it) This event is a good opportunity to meet one on one with the fellows. Since I have volunteered as their Photographer during sessions and events I have taken advantage of meeting them one on one. The DNS for Women is another event that our members can participant and sit with a fellow and befriend them. Its our fault as much as the fellowship programme if we don't make an effort
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Glenn
I know that you would like more, but the inclusion of people with disabilities and from indigenous communities has been included into the current comment; SO/AC representatives on the selection committee are already in their proposal; the inclusion of ALS members is in the current comment; hopefully they use Dev's Stakeholder tool more, it has been mentioned; limit on repeat coaching and more inclusion of mentors with active SO/AC experience and whether they have previous fellows or not (as Abdulkarim mentions); second and third time fellows should feature at the RALO booth because they should have joined up by then - should it be a prerequisite for second and third Fllows??; DNS women's event is also something we can remind them of - good catch.
Eduardo Diaz
We should encourage the existing ICANN Fellowship Program to designate two fellowships from their total allocation to the Global Indigenous Communities until such time as the original program for these communities is reinstated (the program is currently defunct for lack of $$). These communities exists throughout the world and should be integrated in the work that ICANN does. We believe that this abides to the wishes of ICANN to be inclusive and demonstrative that they include diverse sectors of our society as part of the ICANN multistakeholder community.
Some people might see this as asking for a quota within the fellowship program. However, this requirement is temporary until "...such time as the original program for these communities is reinstated".
Glenn McKnight
Thanks Eduardo. very well said. I also want to stress that at no time did any of the previous Indigenous Ambassadors state to me that they don't need any special program. I think our Indigenous selection committee for the past couple of years would concur that they are not looking for special treatment but the reality is that they will become invisible again if we don't provide a provision for their participation
David Morar
Judith Hellerstein
Hi David, So glad to hear this from you and others. I am glad to hear that in the short time the program was introduced they made such a big impact. Like you, I continue to belive that they can bring a different perspective to the DNS
Maureen Hilyard
Eduardo, Glenn, David and Judith
Because the Global Indigenous programme was dropped from budget consideration, there is an assumption that it should be picked up the Fellowship programme. We can ask for two fellowships for first-timers but they would have to fulfil the criteria along with other second and third Fellow selections.. The first and third ICANN meetings might be more appropriate because Fellows would not get to see much action in the constituencies during a policy meeting. Any person with special needs who applied would have to be given special consideration which would have to be included in the regular review of policies made by the selection committee. I will include these as amendments into the Application section.
Glenn McKnight
We need to think who is missing from the fellowship program. Two groups seem to be absent in my observation. Black Americans and Persons of Special Needs. As to the former this has been brought up by some of NARALO membership and it has been brought to the attention to the GSE in North American on the Outreach to Black Historical colleges. I'm not suggestion quotas but perhaps we need to address the issue of promotion of the program beyond the ICANN website. We have promoted the fellowship at our Facebook -Internet Governance Hub.
Maureen Hilyard
Amendment to the "Application" section
Amendment to the "Selection" section
Amendment to the "On-site" section
Amendment to the "Post-meeting requirements" section
Sarah Kiden
Hi Maureen Hilyard I had just responded to one of the comments above and specifically with regards to bullet 2 of the application section. I am worried that specifying indigenous communities will put us in a situation where we may have to specify other underrepresented groups as well. I would like to suggest that we remove bullet 2 and see how to cover it in bullet 1 without specifically mentioning a particular group. I stand to be corrected.
Judith Hellerstein
HI Sarah. We did this because the GIA has no funding this year and so the idea in NARALO was to get 2 slots for this group until we get funding again for the program.
Sarah Kiden
Having been part of the GIA selection team, I totally agree with what you are saying. I just worry about having to look like we are preferring one group to another and that is why I suggest finding a way to cover it under bullet 1.
Eduardo Diaz
Sarah:
Maybe we should add to the 2nd bullet that these slots should be made available until the GIA is re-establsished. This is to be clear that we are not pinpointing this group just because we want it but because it was a program that was established previously and did not get any money to be sustained in the FY19-20 budget
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Eduardo, I think it might be a bit presumptuous to include "until the GIA is re-established". There is no guarantee that it will be re-established. However, this is an opportunity to get it into a programme that is already established, and asking if indigenous communities can be included into it, as of right.
Sarah is reluctant to identify it as another "special" group although I am saying it is another under-represented group as are others in which our regions (SIDS and Africa) already make up a decent portion of the current intake.
Maureen Hilyard
One of the purposes of the Fellowship is to encompass under-represented groups. These are from all over except for developed countries. Within countries such as the USA for example, indigenous communities have never been able to be represented, and neither have our Pacific neighbours American Samoa and Guam because they are self-governing but American territories. To be honest, the Cook Islands is a self-governing territory of New Zealand and theoretically shouldn't have qualified. But then again we now have an ALS
I think these others have missed out for many years and are in catch-up, but by giving two slots from among their current allocation is not a big ask. And all this is doing is asking for some consideration to be given to them. AND, if you ever met Vashkar you would know why it is important to include people with disabilities.
Sarah Kiden
I met Vashkar at IGF 2017 and I'm 1001% definitely a supporter of special allocation for persons with disabilities.Maybe my English is failing me. Please see below what I suggest.
What I am avoiding is having to set aside (or mention specifically) that 2 slots are for a particular group of applicants.
Maureen Hilyard and Eduardo Diaz how is this for an edit?
Sarah Kiden
Glenn McKnight please see response/suggestion above.
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you for this amendment, Sarah, I would support it, recognising that it would be up to the selection committee to decide on an equitable number of applicants from whatever under-represented sections of our communities who apply, to address diversity.
Eduardo Diaz
I can live with that definition.
-ed
Seun Ojedeji
David Morar
Alan Greenberg
The IA program was an initiative of At-Large and explicitly to attract such people into our community. We used the Fellowship training as part of it (obviously with support of Fellowship staff). As a result, they are well aware of it and I think our program has met the need of taking a largely invisible group in ICANN and making them more visible going forward.
Sarah Kiden
Seun, that's my attempt at compromise. My first suggestion was to remove bullet 2 and merge it with bullet one but after reading explanations by some people, I tried to find a middle ground. Of course the most preferred would be a general comment on diversity.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Seun, when the Indigenous Ambassadors were first established it was for developed countries where ICANN did not acknowledge under-served communities like the First Nations. However in the second year, ICANN decided to go GLOBAL with the programme so that they included South America which is considered developing as is AFRICA and ASIA-PACIFIC. And then they closed it down in the third year, go figure. So it does need special mention until such time as it is in their policy that GIAs are integrated into the Fellowship programme, or the GIA programme itself is re-established.
Seun Ojedeji
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Seun
Great to have your views added to this conversation. Ive had Glenn, Eduardo, David and Judith very much wanting the 2 slots for GIA (Global Indigenous Ambassadors - an ICANN term) within the Fellowship programme and you, Sarah and possibly Nadira opting for it being covered by the diversity of the selection process. We'll wait to see how others feel about this. It might encourage more people to join in the discussion
Abdulkarim Ayopo Oloyede
Dear Maureen, I know what it is like to be from a disadvantaged community and I understand why its suggested by them Gleen, however, I believe when you talk of diversity it covers GIA at the same time. hence I would like to go with Seun, Sarah and Nadira on this. Thanks
Alan Greenberg
I strongly support Seun and others in that although we wish to stress diversity including the possibility of indigenous peoples, I do not believe that we want quotas. I would certainly not mention this unless we had STRONG support for it from folks such as Geoffrey Blackwell.
Judith Hellerstein
Good comments, but disabled should be changed to "people with disabilities and specific needs".
Sarah Kiden
Judith Hellerstein and Maureen Hilyard, suggesting to change specific to special needs.
Maureen Hilyard
I had made it special needs because I didn't read Judith's comment properly
But I just wanted to mention, that the selection committee would also have the ability to make policy changes as they think is relevant to the circumstances - as long as it doesn't change the allocation of Fellows allowed.
Glenn McKnight
Hi
The inclusion of marginalized groups can be very extensive. One may argue why them and not others ie. Roma etc. We are saying as NARALO members who have historically not been part of the Fellowship lottery system we asked for inclusion of the most economically deprived members to be part of the ICANN community. We never asked for the program to become Global but it became as such. It was focused on NARALO as part of our annual requests spearheaded by Loris Taylor and Native Public Media. Honestly if the group sees the quota as favouritism I don't blame them, nor going to fight the good fight. It has some interesting optics to it.
Nadira Alaraj
+1 Sarah and Maureen, people with disabilities, indigenous and others, would be provided by a bullet point under the title of diversity for the selection process.
Glenn McKnight
Curious if people read the survey made my the Fellowship completed a year or so ago. It was clear that the vast majority are not engaged with ICANN. Majority didn't even take the time to do the survey. We need to consider the changes to encourage those who already 'drank the koolaid" , those already part of the community. its only logical that we want people to stay and contribute. History has a failure for recruitment
Nadira Alaraj
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Glenn and Nadira. In the draft there is a statement : An extended timeframe of perhaps a year between fellowships plus relevant metrics, will help to provide a gauge of both the impact and effectiveness of the Fellow's outreach, but also give them an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment by actually joining up with a constituency and getting involved in the interim.
Does this give a flavour of what you are asking? That the Fellowship programmers will establish metrics that not only measure the impact of their outreach (from the reports they give in their applications for 2nd or 3rd Fellows) but also that they have shown that they are already engaged. Perhaps I can reword it a bit.
Nadira Alaraj
Hi Maureen,
Seems I couldn't explain my suggestion clearly. Here I will be try to make it explicit to be added.
The new fellowship draft proposal list the following section:
Metrics
• ICANN Org to track the following data points, ensuring compliance with relevant privacy regulation, and report on data to the community:
• # applications by region and fellows selected by region
• # applications by sector and fellows selected by sector
• Participation in policy development processes:
• # pen holders on policy reports and documents
• # mailing list contributions
• # public comment contributors
• # leadership positions
• Participation in regional engagement and outreach
• # regional events attended
• # regional events organized
My suggestion to add to the ALAC draft the following:
Metrics
Under the metrics section, we would recommend to provide the following data points
• # applications by country and gender
The reasoning: These data point will help ICANN move towards global inclusion. With time the analysis per country will identify which countries needed an intervention in the outreach activities.
Nadira Alaraj
Maureen Hilyard
Good questions Nadira. The Stakeholder tool can tell you which countries have not had any fellows yet, but it doesn't tell you if anyone ever applied for a Fellowship from one of those countries and didn't get accepted, because that information is not available. ICANN's goal for At-Large outreach is to at least try to get one ALS in every country in the world. And that's not going to happen if they are going to cut funds to enable regional outreachers to attend national and regional events to try to capture interested individuals to start off with, and then groups to establish an ALS. Unfortunately highly paid ICANN decision-makers expect volunteers to do this work in their regions on behalf of the corporation but in their own time and at their own expense. Indigenous groups within these currently under-served countries are not even going to know about ICANN or ISOC or any other internet end-user-related group unless our message gets out there, which is why we need active Fellows on the ground, making these contacts for us and encouraging others to apply.
Nadira Alaraj
Maureen Hilyard
The stakeholder tool is public and GSE can access it themselves when they are doing their own planning. Also we are asking the SO/ACs have their chosen reps on the selection panel as well to ensure that the diversity also covers their constituency needs as far as backgrounds and skills.
Nadira Alaraj
Maureen Hilyard
Nadira. Are you asking the selection committee to provide data about the countries that applications come from? We would have to get ICANN's view on giving out such data for the Fellowship programme. I can't help thinking that there must be lots of applications from people who have no knowledge or interest in ICANN except for a chance to travel. Already we know a lot of people slip through. Recording actual applications from whatever countries would therefore give a false impression of real Fellow potential. I would rather concentrate on the actual selection process, where we are trying to identify the inequities to ensure the selection committee will address these in their selection.
Nadira Alaraj
Alan Greenberg
I see no reason why the demographics of those applying would be considered confidential. It may even be possible to get that retroactively. Knowing what countries are not applying at all may give insight as to where ICANN might target outreach and publicity.
Maureen Hilyard
This seems reasonable - if not deemed confidential. I am adding it.
Alfredo Calderon
I agree with Alan. Demographics would be a non-confidential data. Otherwise, the "ICANN in numbers report" would not be possible. Keep in mind that in some countries, there are 'territories' that are not 'legally countries or nations'.
Glenn McKnight
Again i need to stress that the Stakeholder tool is NOT a creation of the ICANN staff. The lack of data mining and disclosure has been a major issue. Remember prior to Dev's work ICANN only posted the "winners" of each meeting. No disclosure of applicants, no reveal of who got repeat fellowships, no analysis of missing regions, no gap analysis etc. we need to add in our recommendation that the decisions by committee to consider historical information before selecting the new names.
Maureen Hilyard
Yes Nadira, the proposed list does not acknowledge "gender or any other diversity factors,to move ICANN towards global inclusion." We'll add it
Alfredo Calderon
The conversation has been very productive and enlightening. I wrote a comment directly on the Wiki for comments, where I actually recommended at least a 1-year cycle to validate some of the metrics suggested in the new Fellowship Program. The results will aide the selection committee in seeking those criteria that would help them identify the most suitable candidates for fellowships or coach / mentors. Of course we always have to keep in mind that a key factor is also the need for funding (due to lack of personal or employer monies) to have the volunteers participate in the face-to-face meetings.
Thus Maureen Hilyard your statement reflects my position.
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you Alfredo
David Morar
Hello everybody
Before anything I think the comments have to define what the At Large community sees the fellowship program as. Is this a Leadership program? Because the comments, especially pushing for more control to SO/ACs over selection and coaching, and asking for fellowship slots for ALSs, among others seem to be implying this. If so, then great, but that's not what the program is currently and it would be unfair to measure the current program (which, by definition and practice, is designed primarily to give people that are **new** to ICANN a way to join and become involved - half of the programming is explaining the basics of ICANN) by the metrics of what the community wants it to be.
That's why I think it's important to start from the definition. What does the community want this program to be? Do we want it promote voices that are not usually part of the convo? Do we want it to be a leadership and involvement pipeline for the RALO/AC/SO/SG etc? Do we want it to be a sustainable way of legitimate peripheral entry into the community and ICANN? Do we want it to be just another travel slot that has an added bonus of a mentor? Do we want to do all of them? Once we decide, or at least once people express their conception on what the program should be, I think the conversation will be streamlined. Personally, I think it should be sustainable way of legitimate peripheral entry, and a promotion of voices not usually part of the convo.
To the point at hand:
I mean if the survey isn't even filled in by the majority, I'd say using that as a starting point is a bit off. I know I filled it in because I felt like I had to, but I was not yet ready to come back into the ICANN fold (dissertation proposal, summer fellowships etc), so of course I'm counted as one of the people not engaged. But as I was preparing for IGF17, I was able to refocus towards IG and ICANN, and came back into the community. Expecting a large number of people to fully understand and substantively join after one fellowship (and probably thus only one meeting) is a pretty high bar. Don't get me wrong, there are a bunch of people just going for the free trip to **fill in the blank** , for sure, but I think the expectation that people joining the fellowship automatically graduate into full and vocal members of one of the AC/SOs is not realistic. Some do, and they're very successful, but they are not the norm.
I appreciate a good metric, but it seems like a lot of people are treating the program as if it's an input/output machine that creates widgets out of metal, not mostly first-timers to a very complex institution trying to figure out where they belong. The first ICANN meeting, even as a fellow and an extrovert, is a very daunting experience. To expect people to automatically know their place and up and become leaders and involved participants in communities that are already entrenched, and to want to make that the gold standard for how the program is defined is a very high bar. If we're after only high-achievers that will hit the ground running, that's great, but again, that should be stated clearly in the way in which we define the program, and in its mission.
(apologies if my replies do not make much sense, I am wrapping up the writing of my dissertation, and am very sleep-deprived)
Alan Greenberg
In ICANN terminology, "Leaders" generally are anyone who volunteers for an AC or SO Council or other job leading a group (such a WG).
In my mind, finding new Leaders is one part of the Fellowship benefits. The other part is general consciousness raising and recruiting people, who will be active although not (initially or perhaps ever) in a Leadership role.
Sarah Kiden
Thank you for this, Glenn McKnight. I read the survey and some reasons were cited for not participating. Just to pick out one thing, I saw a comment about not having funding to attend ICANN meetings as a reason for not participating. We need to continue mentioning that attending a meeting is not the "only" way to contribute, and in fact a lot of the work is done outside of ICANN meetings. I also saw mentions of participating in or contributing to related events nationally and regionally. So how do we capture these events that are not exactly organised by ICANN but contribute to the mission of ICANN?
About not responding to the survey, I actually don't know. Janice and Siranush did a good job of sending out this survey to the fellowship mailing list and to individual emails (and even sending reminders before deadline).
Nadira Alaraj
Alfredo Calderon
David, your ideas are well taken. I agree that the Fellowship Program is an "Outreach and Engagement" initiative. Its mission is to reach out to those who "need" this face-to-face experience to 'explore' and define where they fit within the ICANN world. I believe that the new Program Proposal pursues to better measure the success of the mission. Probably, the three-phase approach for fellows is what's more structured and met to have measurable outcomes. My understanding is that 'giving ACs/SOs an active participation in the selection process and establishing criteria will 'probably' ensure that it will be easier to 'mentor/follow' the alumni's progress within ICANN. I agree that it should not be considered an "input/output machine that creates widgets of-of ...", but probably some form of measure of effectiveness must be set.
Glenn McKnight
Thanks Maureen for the first draft.
As to the issue of engagement. I understand that 50% of the ICANN Barcelona are self identified ATLARGE folks. I think the onus should be partially on the fellows to be proactive and reach out to their RALO leaders and start the informal discussion. This is in contrast to the ICANN learn which can be fudged as to the completion of the course. One of the excellent examples a few meetings ago was a excellent blog post by one of the fellows on his observations of the experience with photos.
Judith Hellerstein
Actually according to the data that Siranush posted only 7 people identified at End Users. Others identified as Civil Society. However these people could be either NCUC or At large so not fair to categorize them as only At Large
Tijani Ben Jemaa
It seems that the main objective of the fellowship program has been forgotten (or changed). It was to bring to ICANN meetings those who can't make it without the support given to the fellow. Thus, the fellowship program was restricted to developping and least developed countries.
The list of the supported fellows included 2 from the US, one from Russia and one from China.
The fellows for Panama included one former GAC Vice Chair. So, the selection criteria should be modified to prevent such aberations
Bram Fudzulani
Thank you Tijani Ben Jemaa for bringing an important aspect I would love to also see how this changed and to appreciate the parameters that will ensure a balance in the representation for the sake of diversity and inclusion to the fellowship program
Tijani Ben Jemaa
Sorry, there was a missing word in my previous comment. It should read:
The list of the supported fellows for Barcelona included 2 from the US, one from Russia and one from China.
Maureen Hilyard
All large countries, Tijani. And previously very few Fellows came from underserved communities within those countries. If you have a look at Dev's Stakeholder Tool you will see that.
Alfredo Calderon
Dear Tijani, it is worth mentioning that even if those Fellows come from "large countries" it has communities underrepresented precisely because of lack of appropriate fiscal conditions/working conditions to actively participate in ICANN. Some may have a huge interest, but to assist in meetings is a burden where (assistance is not approved by an employer) thus, assistance is a hardship for some.
So, the Fellowship Program, serving as a Coach/Mentor is a way to encourage 'us' to continue engaging, without adding a burden to our monetary conditions. It is my perception that the "new program" will consider the economic stress among volunteers as a criteria / metrics.
Abdulkarim Ayopo Oloyede
In a way, I see your point and I agree to an extent.
Alberto Soto
I suggest the following modification in Post-meeting requirements:
SO / ACs may wish to invite Fellows to relevant meetings or other means of ongoing communication as part of the post-meeting follow-up. For this it is suggested that from the administration of the fellowship program, the mail be obtained who voluntarily wish to participate in the different SO / AC and are sent to them. With this, the relevant invitations can be made and the participation and monitoring of the fellowships within our ecosystem can be achieved. In the case of ALAC, the invitation would be made by the RALOS with the respective fellowships of their Region.
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you for your input. I think if you look at the ON-SITE section of our comment, I think you will see that SO/ACs are encouraged to find ways to include Fellows, as well as Fellows themselves taking the initiative to learn more about their regions through their RALOs. I hope that fits your bill
Alberto Soto
Inn agreement Maureen. I thought that my proposal was a definite form and that it should remain as a procedure. Regards
Amrita Choudhury
The suggestion of involving fellows in the At large discussion as rapporteur is excellent.
Secondly for fellowship Coaches and Mentors apart from good understanding of ICANN, it is important for them to be interested to guide the fellow (s). There should be some selection criteria for being a Coach or Mentor along with some metrics to evaluate their engagement.
Amrita Choudhury
Currently Fellows are asked to go through the ICANN Learn after being selected. Making it mandatory to go through ICANN Learn may be beneficial.
To ensure an updated ICANN Learn, SO/ACs may at regular interval relook at the module and update it.
Amrita Choudhury
A suggestion for encouraging engagement of fellow in an SO/AC post fellowship:
Post ICANN meeting, as a part of the fellowship report, fellows may be encouraged to write a brief note on the SO/AC they are keen to join and ways in which they want to engage with that SO/AC
Ricardo Holmquist
Hi, about this line on the On Site section "..It would be expected that Fellows would have joined their RALOs following their first Fellowship..", should include for At Large, or Civil Society, or end user Fellows. Not all fellows are in At Large.
Also, I'm not sure this Fellow program includes all the programs, actually there are four programs, not just one. There are Fellows, Indigenous program, Youth and Regional newcomers. On the draft there is included a section for the indigenous program, but I'm not sure the other 2 type of fellowship are on this approach, if so, some other comments must be done.
Eduardo Diaz
The indigenous program was handled through his own program and no through the fellows. It was named - Global Indigenous Ambassador Program (GIAP) and it is actual in a defunct state since did not get any budget. That is why the line item was added and it is just until the GIAP gets funded again.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Ricardo, what we have found with some Fellows and newbie individuals is that they initiallyjoin At-Large as individuals to first find out about ICANN and then as they become more acquainted they move to their chosen constituency. But the connection is always there. I think this is very much the case with NCUC. Some start in At-Large and frequently move between their groups, and we need that too, to be a home for end-users whatever constituency they end up in as of their interest.
With regards to the other types of Fellowships, I believe Next Gen still exists but all other groups are to be consolidated into the Fellowship programme and that includes indigenous groups. We are just asking for special consideration to be given to these groups.
John Laprise
I'd also chip in (in case it hasn't been mentioned earlier) that as we are dealing with At Large, many potentially interested people may not be socialized to not only ICANN but international, organizational decision making processes. This is a significantly different bar than new members in other SOs/ACs face and this issue should be raised in the text.
Eranga Samararathna
Hi Maureen,
Thanks for good work. I want to emphasize the diversity of the selection committee. The selection committee should be appointed by the community (SO/ACs). The current appointment method for the selection committee not clear. The selection committee need to provide feedback for all applicants irrespective whether they are selected or not. I knew there are hundreds of applicants but still whatever the feedback given by selection committee (ex: in there Excel sheet) need to reach to the applicant. Then only applicant can prepare better application for next time. As an example If application not engaged on any policy work then based on the feedback they plan future opportunities. As a fellowship applicant sometimes I was wonder for which reason my name was not there.
Hadia Elminiawi
Thank you for this comprehensive statement that I support. I Have one comment though with regard to the extended time frame between fellowships which I totally support as in addition to what you put in your statement it also gives an opportunity to the fellow to evolve and mature enabling him/her to benefit more from the next fellowship opportunity, however I feel that this item is more relevant under the selection criteria section rather than the post meeting requirements section
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you for this suggestion Hadia.. Because the focus is more on what they did after their Fellowship, as well as the the time they would need in which to show the impacts of their interventions, I decided on Post-meeting as the most appropriate section. Hope you agree
Loris Taylor
Native Public Media Comments on the “Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach”
July 2018
Native Public Media (NPM) appreciates the opportunity to review the draft Proposal of the new Fellowship Approach and advances recommendations for fellowship program activities.
NPM respectfully submits the following comments.
I. Introduction
NPM, a Tribal nonprofit organization, encourages Native Americans across the United States to participate actively in all forms of media. NPM is an established leader in communications and telecommunications policymaking, supporting development that encourages the expansion and strengthening of native choices through media platforms that are community based, local and democratic. As an advocate for spectrum opportunities on behalf of Tribes over the past 13 years, NPM agrees with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission “that ‘members of federally-recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages and other residents of Tribal lands have lacked meaningful access to wired and wireless communications services.”
To that regard, NPM as an At-Large Structure within NARALO, proposed the establishment of the Global Indigenous Fellowship Program (GIAP), formerly the “Tribal Ambassadors Fellowship” to enhance ICANN’s outreach to U.S. American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages and Canada’s First Nations. To realize an authentic “One Internet, One World” all must be at the table. The GIA program was rightfully expanded to include other self-governing Indigenous communities worldwide.
II. Self-Governing Indigenous Communities versus Quota
As a predicate to the debate that is very important to NPM, we wish to strongly suggest a refocus of the dialogue to the actual nature of the question at hand. This should not be a debate about a quota. NPM’s work is based on the foundation of Tribal sovereignty. In this broad and complex context, all of NPM’s policy work is organized around the inherent sovereignty of Tribes recognized in the U.S. Constitution which vests Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches of the U.S. federal government with the authority to engage in relations with Tribes. A federally recognized Tribe is an American Indian Tribe or Alaska Native Village that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
Under this cloak of understanding, NPM does not support the dialogue that has grown out of the experiences of the GIAP that now characterizes the proposal as a “quota.” The use of this term to couch the dialogue is misplaced for three reasons at the least:
• First, a quota presupposes that fellowship selection decisions will be made only on one criteria -- the applicant’s status as being indigenous. It suggests that the decisions on inclusion do not consider whether the applicant is a member of a self-governing Indigenous community nor the applicant’s merit, knowledge, accomplishments, and effort.
• Second, it suggests that the level of commitment to diversity of viewpoint and inclusion of underserved communities extends only as far as a minimum level of involvement. Couching the discussion in “quota” terms makes it appear that the ALAC and ICANN will be fulfilling its mission and stated goals by the minimum of effort and level of commitment. It suggests meeting a quota is actually an accomplishment, when it is not. The accomplishment must be a sustained level of outreach and liaison with self-governing Indigenous communities and to engage them though identifying and including their best and brightest. Put plainly, this dialogue should be about more.
• Third, a dialogue of quota also stages the conversation upon a term that elicits very negative and difficult societal connotations between classes, races, and communities of peoples. It raises pre-suggested issues of inequality and preferential treatment. It elicits often unspoken but deeply held emotions concerning what has come to be known as “reverse discrimination. This would suggest that an unqualified Indigenous representative would take the place of a qualified non-Indigenous representative. From the very start, it places the unserved and un-included party, here an Indigenous person, in a difficult defensive posture. The target of the discussion becomes a negative As you can see, each reason has very negative implications and depths of complexity that are awkward at best, routinely offensive, and often destructive to the efforts of peoples and communities that are already marginalized by the effects of history, geo-politics, and now vastly outdated thinking. A quota debate smacks of that sort of unhealthy thinking and all of us must refrain from such thinking. Instead, NPM advocates for the identification of funding resources and concerted efforts at outreach dedicated to identifying qualified candidates from unserved Indigenous self-governed communities worldwide. Just as ICANN has an existing relationship with governments around the world, so should it have a relationship with self-governed Indigenous communities. If the dialogue focuses on a commitment of resources and efforts to find and include qualified and capable indigenous candidates, rather than to fill a quota, the purpose of the program becomes clearer.
III. GIAP Alignment
NPM advocates for an alignment of the GIAP program administration with Tribal and Indigenous community representatives. In order for the program to have legitimacy and operate with an authenticity, it would be appropriate to identify and empower an indigenous or tribal representative to lead the efforts. Having the program driven and led by a member of an actual member of an Indigenous community, from the region where his or her people experience the issues of their community and reside, is paramount to the program and brings a genuine awareness and ability to engage tribal and indigenous communities in a way that is relevant, informed, and meaningful to them.
IV Application
• Based on the success of the previous Global Indigenous Ambassadors Fellowship program, NPM encourages the Fellowship Program to organize concerted efforts at filling an additional two slots for fellows representing First Nations, American Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Villages, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and other indigenous communities such as the un-served communities of the SE Pacific Rim and the continent of Africa. The Fellowship program is an ideal place for the inclusion of Newcomers and coordination of shared interests and training in the diverse elements of ICANN.
• NPM encourages the Regional At-Large group to produce and provide an introductory webinar as a general introduction to ICANN describing the policy development process of ICANN as well as ICANN’s overlapping importance and relevance to local world communities.
• NPM supports continuous outreach to indigenous communities through the ALAC and the RALOs to encourage applications from candidates.
V. Selection Committee
NPM recommends that the selection committee be representative of veteran ICANN members, fellowship alumni, and individuals that demonstrate a commitment to the diversity of the ICANN community. The Selection Committee should include a representative from an Indigenous ALS.
VI. Selection Criteria
• Equity and inclusion should be built into the selection criteria. These include geographic, ALS diversity, talent, disabilities, gender, and such other criteria that are representative of ICANN’s global community and values including merit, knowledge, accomplishments, and effort.
• NPM recommends that the Fellowship be open to new entrants to ICANN as well as current At-Large Structures that are continuing to grow their capacity, experience, and understanding of ICANN.
• Post fellowship, NPM recommends that ICANN produce and provide a webinar that details the many opportunities fellowship alumni can choose from to remain active in ICANN’s work.
VII. Verify proof of engagement
• As part of the fellowship application, listing ways that fellows or returning fellows can demonstrate their engagement with ICANN or within their local communities remains integral to the Fellowship Program. Tracking this engagement will need to be more formalized in order to detail outcomes and success.
• GIAP alumni should be encouraged to serve as ambassadors of the program at ICANN events and conferences (including within their own communities) and speak to the benefits of the ICANN Fellowship Program. Funding should be allocated for this.
VIII. Pre-meeting and On-Site
• The ICANN handbooks and other resources should be available to incoming fellows.
• Early interactions between selected fellows and their mentor(s) should follow a uniform structure so that it can be evaluated for effectiveness from year-to-year.
• The Fellowship Program should assist in the coordination and training of GIAP Fellows and/or Mentor that speak many different languages, in many different time zones worldwide. This will help to overcome significant language barriers that often result in the fellows not being able to relate or articulate the depth of the engagement without a translator.
IX. Post Meeting
• Fellows should be invited to making a commitment to assist with the recruitment of future Indigenous applicants.
• NPM remains strongly committed to having a hand in assuring that the GIA Program continues to benefit Indigenous communities and in fulfilling the mission of the ICANN. That commitment includes involvement in the selection process, serving as advisors and/or mentors to the GIAP, and in general helping to make the GIAP successful annually.
Maureen Hilyard
Thank you Loris for this contribution from the Native Public Media. Rather than my trying to select specific items for inclusion into the ALAC formal statement, I would suggest that you send your comment directly to Ergys Ramaj ergys.ramaj@icann.org. With regards to the recommendation in the final statement of your comment, about further fellowship slot for the Global Indigenous Ambassadors, discussion with the wider community has ensured that our comment acknowledged the need for consideration of places for indigenous communities to be represented. However, the entirety of your comment deserves to be presented in its own right to the Fellowship programme.
Shreedeep Rayamajhi
The new fellowship program needs to have specific guidelines of prioritizing the involvement and evaluation of new and young fellows and their engagement during and after the fellowship program.
There needs to be specific indicators for promoting youth and online leadership program. Toolkit and easy info graphic needs to be developed for explaining the easy communication and process.
Especially in developing countries, young leaders needs more fellowship and opportunity which need to be prioritized in the new fellowship program.
Maureen Hilyard
Hi Shreedeep, Great points. Unfortunately the comment period for this topic is now closed and the ALAC has submitted its comments as above. I do think that young leaders do not need to be part of the fellowship before they become involved in ICANN. The fellowship will add a lot of learning about the bigger picture of ICANN, but learning through the RALO system is a slower but just as effective pathway to learning about, as well as get their first taste of the workings of, ICANN. But we do need a Youth Engagement Strategy for At-Large - how do we engage them enough to want to do what is our job - and that is commenting on other people's work. So, it would be very appropriate for an O&E Working group to study this and devise a plan that might help us address the issue, and you could possibly lead it. Ask Daniel Nanghaka, the Chair, if he can put it onto the next O&E meeting call.
Shreedeep Rayamajhi
Thank you maureen, I will surely keep that in mind.