Page History
...
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. If possible then we can add this to the agenda. If not Wolf and me and everybody else might keep this in mind so then we come back to this issue under Item #5. I see a question Salanieta writes: “Will we engage a survey?” Salanieta, may I ask for you to specify your question?
Wiki Markup
And I suppose in a broader sense it would be really good to (inaudible) but I cannot read the question now as it is beyond the purview of the agenda. Thank you.
...
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. And you’re thinking of the tool of an online survey, right?
Wiki Markup
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. I think I understood what you mean. I’d just like to make a general note which I did already on the first conference call for the entire Working Group where you unfortunately could not join us. We are discussing here on this very small and I think very short-term of a Working Group, we are discussing here only one part of an entire capacity building program within ICANN. There are some programs in place, there are some programs under development, and the ICANN Academy is only a summer-school-like part of an entire program.
...
Sandra Hoferichter: Oh, I understand.
unmigrated-wiki-markup
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, so we will need it a little bit earlier. The second, I have another remark. You said that the Academy is a one-part work. I am sorry but I disagree with you because I think even if now we will work on this task, the Academy is the sum of all the \[levels of\] productivity and work in ICANN; otherwise, it is not an Academy. So I agree with you that we’ll address only the Board, the newcomer of the Board \[learning process\]. The Academy must address all the learning and capacity building of all the \[work types\] of ICANN.\\Jemaa: Yes, so we will need it a little bit earlier. The second, I have another remark. You said that the Academy is a one-part work. I am sorry but I disagree with you because I think even if now we will work on this task, the Academy is the sum of all the [levels of] productivity and work in ICANN; otherwise, it is not an Academy. So I agree with you that we’ll address only the Board, the newcomer of the Board [learning process]. The Academy must address all the learning and capacity building of all the [work types] of ICANN.
Sandra Hoferichter: I understand what you mean and I also agree with your intention that it has to combine more under its umbrella. But then maybe we should think about renaming the project we are just working on here because this Working Group was set up to do only one single part within the entire capacity building program. I mean I think it’s more or less a time of how to word this thing. Some people might understand that under an ICANN Academy is something more which is greater, which has outreach to other stakeholder groups; not only elected officers and Board members.
...
Wolf Ludwig: Well, I’m not sure whether I perfectly got Tijani’s point. As far as I understood it, this ICANN Academy approach is clearly focused on all ICANN communities, constituencies, all parts of ICANN from Board level to GAC, to Business exhort to At-Large civil society sector.
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
On the first hand, it is what we discussed with Filiz last August in \[Mison\] when we had the long discussion on it. We were saying to start with and for a pilot period it would be most probably wise to focus on a narrow target group of incoming ICANN officers -- people who have to play a role on the GAC level, on the Board level, on the GNSO level, on the ALAC level immediately in the next couple of months. |
So it was, at this stage it was not meant to be an ICANN Academy with capacity building programs like there are many other capacity building programs already existing addressed to support the broad bases of ALSes. So it’s not what we did in Dakar for AFRALO, inviting all the ALSes and giving everybody from the ALS level an opportunity to get familiar with ICANN. This is not a target group at this stage; this could be considered afterwards but the primary wish or the primary request from ICANN last August was to be more focused on the requirements of ICANN functioning and being focused on incoming officers.
And that was more or less the basis on which we wrote the existing proposal in August and submitted it to At-Large, and this should be clear and considered. So it’s no exclusive but it’s focused on a specific requirement for the start of the project. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. May I add something to underline what Wolf just said? In our Academy proposal, and the link is copied in the chat for both, under the Point #1 introduction, if you scroll down, a little bit further down it says “A, B, and C.” And actually A, B, and C, all these things include somehow a whole capacity building program for ICANN. And we were specifically asked only to work on B, and I repeated and enhanced a 20 hours lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Councils and Advisory Committees financed by ICANN.
I read in the chat that we should also include new staff members for training and I think this is a very good idea to keep. It was already mentioned in various discussions and I would strongly support this idea. So thank you, Heidi, for posting this again in the chat.
This is exactly what this Working Group is working for – nothing else. Everything else has to be done in another Working Group, in another Task Force or later on to combine all these different programs under one umbrella. And I’d like to also agree with Avri and maybe I would like to ask my question now so we can put this on the agenda, that we might decide to give this program, what we are doing here when the work is done a new name. We should not do this now but we should consider not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else in order to not confuse people.
May I ask for your hands raised? Please use the Adobe chat function for this. Then if you all agree to consider the rename of the… I had agreement before; now there is no agreement anymore. Wolf is not in favor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Sandra, may I ask if you don’t mind, I’d like to say that we can keep the “Academy” as the name, but the Academy now will only concentrate on one task. So it will be the Academy now. We are working on the Academy but we are only working on a single task, and we will include the other tasks afterwards.
Sandra Hoferichter: Right. So may I ask to indicate if you agree or disagree to consider to rename this program we are working on here; not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else that can be considered later on? Can I ask you to show your agreement or disagreement?
I see two hands raised.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Hello?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I know that-
Sandra Hoferichter: Who is speaking please?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: This is Sala.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, go ahead, Sala.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you, Sandra. I know that this is specifically tasked to look at the ICANN Academy for the (interference). I think in terms of context, in terms of the budget allocations and whatnot and in terms of submissions for various (inaudible) within various RALOs in relation to ICANN Academy. When we say “ICANN Academy” it symbolizes training and that sort of thing, and given that it means training people from all over the world and that sort of thing, I think that we really need to perhaps rethink in terms of your 20-hour lecture, of what are the things available besides lectures within ICANN Academy?
Because if we limit it to the 20-hour lecture then it’s only a select few who get to benefit from the training as opposed to a lot more impact from a lot of the options that may be available and that sort of thing. And once we can say “Yes, we’re restricted to the ICANN Academy and the reason is because this is part of training, capacity building and information, and whether or not it’s going to be created in the other Task Forces I’m not too sure but it will definitely have an impact on the budget. And that is real (inaudible).
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Salanieta. Before I answer to this I’d like to ask other people to raise their hands – Avri, please? Avri, you might be muted.
Avri Doria: Sorry, I forgot this was the phone call where you had to use a *7 instead of a *6 to unmute. I am not doing well today.
Okay, I don’t think it really matters what it’s called at the moment – I don’t care if we call it “Fred” and work on it. I think we need to figure out… I think in terms of what this is doing, it’s maybe a pilot in terms of what one does for the ever. I see what’s being said, the Diplo model versus the ISOC model that we’re dealing with officers here, but remembering that some of these officers come in from Bloomfield that know absolutely nothing about ICANN, who know sometimes precious little about internet governance – the only thing is they happen to be respected in some field or another and aren’t just kids off the street.
Calling it “Academy” is fine; calling it a “Pilot Academy” is fine. As I said, calling it “Fred” is fine. I think what we need to do is figure out what it is we need to give. I think we’ll find that it’s very much the same as what would be given in a larger capacity building, and indeed I think what we’re doing is building their capacity – trying to give them the capacity to be functional their first year as opposed to coming in and basically feeling lost for their first year.
And with staff, and I really do think that what we need to do is take it back and say “New staff that’s going to be working with Working Groups need to get this, too,” because what happens is when new staff comes in “La, la, la – I’m a staff member, I’m going to help you do your work,” and they haven’t the faintest idea of the context they’re working in. And it takes them a year of confusing the Working Group before some of them end up being really, really, really good.
So I think that they have as great a need of it as do newly selected officers, but I think the curriculum is narrower because it’s more focused to a particular purpose but it’s really a pilot into what people were thinking of as the general capacity building that all and sundry can use. So let’s call it “Academy,” let’s call it “Pre-Academy”; let’s call it “Advanced Leadership Training,” let’s call it “Fred” – I don’t think it matters. Thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and now I would ask Olivier Crépin-Leblond, he raised his hand, too, to take the floor. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier for the transcript. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, very well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, just wanted to check whether I had been muted or not muted, but okay. I just echo what Avri has been saying there; I totally agree with her apart from the term “ICANN Academy” where it has been pitched so far to staff as ICANN Academy. It has to remain named ICANN Academy because it has gained traction within ICANN as ICANN Academy, so that’s why the name has to remain ICANN Academy. But everything else that Avri said is absolutely correct and has my green light on.
We have to look at an enhanced 20-hour lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Council and Advisory Committees – that is it. Everything else – the capacity building of our communities and so on – is something that is a different program that is actually being dealt with and addressed from the At-Large Improvements Process which is an entirely separate process from this one.
We have willingly separated the processes so as for the ICANN Academy to proceed forward at a fast pace because there’s real, real demand today for this sort of thing. The capacity building, we know there is a demand – it’s already started. We’ve seen what’s happened in Africa and the AFRALO capacity building; that is a more local thing and that will probably be done through the Regional At-Large Organizations. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Olivier. In order to keep the agenda I don’t like to extend what you just said but I’d like to strongly support what Avri and Olivier just said. And I think we should stop this discussion here about the task of this Working Group. We are working on a 20-hour lecture course and nothing else. Everything else should be discussed somewhere else; in another working group, on another improvements workspace, on another task force.
And I also agree with the point that I hadn’t taken into consideration so far, that now that the name is somehow famous into the ears of staff and of the ICANN community we should maybe not rename the baby even if it’s not perfect for the moment but it could be improved in the future.
Okay, so let’s go to modification of the budget now and I ask everybody to open this first proposal published in August and go to the very bottom of this proposal, where under Item #8 it says “Draft Budget.” This budget was drafted with the help of Wolfgang Kleinwächter who is very much advanced and experienced in organizing lecture courses 20 and more hours, and he put together some figures and these figures were considered by ICANN as being far too high for the first trial.
And I do understand the point that asking for $90,000 US is pretty much and we have to be clear on what we need the money for. However, we have to adjust this proposal a little bit and I believe that on the first stage and the first trial to get this Academy or this program running and to grow and to let it grow, we have to start very low with the very large amount of voluntary work which means that I think some points in this budget can be captured by ICANN community members, leaders.
I think of the lecturers which are in this budget with $10,000 US. I think for the first trial at least we can skip those $10,000 US and ask voluntary leaders to arrive three days prior to an ICANN meeting or two days after and give a lecture to new appointed leaders to tell them about the experience and everything. And I would ask if you all agree to this proposal? Could you please use the Adobe Connect tool – it’s only one. Wolf raised his hand; Wolf, please.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, it’s Wolf Ludwig for the record. I just went through the original budget which was a very rough estimate on probably more a current working project already, and I see another factor in it. I agree with what Sandra said before. It’s a pilot phase or state – I think we could reduce this budget post of the $10,000 for the lecturers.
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
The second one, what comes into my eyes, what is the most considerable one is the prep and the org costs of two times $25,000, and this in a pilot stage -- I don’t know. I think once we did one or two pilots we’ll know much better the strengths and the weaknesses and the \[lacks\], etc., and then we can recalculate the \[options\] and the basic requirements. But for the pilot phase, I would also like to suggest to reduce considerably on the prep and the org costs of $50,000. If this is reduced to half or to $20,000, together with the budget post mentioned by Sandra already it would reduce the total amount considerably. |
On the other budget posts, etc., I’m not sure. I think these are basics. Probably, yes, especially the travel one which is based on the assumption that in case it would happen the first time in Toronto in line with ICANN 2012 Autumn meeting then these travel costs for incoming new officers would be anyhow covered by ICANN Constituency Travel. So my suggestion would be besides the suggestion of Sandra to reduce by half at least the prep and the org costs. Thank you.
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. I think I made a mistake that I started from the bottom because I should have mentioned before that lodging and venue costs will be somehow essential, also as technical equipment. They might be adjustable a little bit but they will remain somehow in this stage. Lecturers could be lead into voluntary work; and also the preparation and organizing costs could be reduced; and I absolutely agree with Wolf. If a lot of the work is done on a voluntary basis, or if we offer staff support where we say “Okay, these people are engaged by ICANN already and they can be of great help to organize a thing.” And also \[Michel Angelo\] is the last point for discussion. |
So I would propose, because of the tight timeline that we work on the budget on the mailing list or on the Wiki space including the whole Working Group; but we should somehow lead the way in which direction it should go to. So this would be actually the first task to fulfill until not even the 20th of January but earlier, so we have to do it over the Christmas break and at the beginning of next year.
We should quickly agree on where we can reduce costs and how much. And I would propose to leave this discussion then to the mailing list where the entire Working Group is able to participate because we as a Program Committee as far as I understood are there to lead the group but not to propose the actual budget itself.
I see Avri has raised her hand. Avri, please?
Avri Doria: Yes, thanks, and this time hopefully I got myself unmuted.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, you have.
Avri Doria: Okay, a couple questions. First I totally agree with you – this group is supposed to be helping to organize the conversation I thought and not to be the ones actually making decisions. Two, I’m questioning whether there’s been pushback on this budget that makes people feel they already need to cut it. Three, I’m wondering exactly what is involved in the prep and org costs.
A couple things I think we have to pay attention to is expecting people to do things as volunteers is good but when you use volunteers, especially whether it’s lecturers or organizations, what you do get is best effort. Now, some people’s best effort is really, really good and you can’t tell the difference between what they do for money and what they do as a volunteer activity. But in other cases, best effort is somebody committing to doing something, they get a paying gig and all of a sudden they’re gone because they’ve got to get paid… And if this isn’t paying, sorry, but that’s the way the decision goes.
So I think people should really consider that when they decide whether you’re going to… And especially when you’re bringing in Board members you also want to be careful not to create a two-tier environment where the teachers and the lecturers somehow end up serving the mighty new Board members who have come in to be lectured to and educated. So I think you have to be very careful with how you structure this.
So I’m not sure yet that I support the “Gee, let’s chop it and let’s make everybody work for free, and let’s then all travel at the cheapest level possible, except of course for the Board who will be treated special.” And so I think we’ve got to be careful in the doing, thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri. Would it serve your objections if the budget is detailed a little bit more so to say that we write down what is on the preparation and organization costs? From my point of view as I am organizing summer schools I know what preparation and organization costs mean, but I do absolutely understand that somebody from the outside looking at this has not really a clear idea what is behind there.
So I would agree that we structure this a little bit more – what is preparation and organization costs – and put numbers behind to see what can be done on a voluntary basis and what not, and what can be done by staff. Would this satisfy your concern, Avri?
Avri Doria: Certainly. As I said, it wasn’t quite what I was getting at but sure. I think certainly we need to understand what the costs are, and I think it’s probably good to understand what risks the program is willing to take at each place of having someone volunteer versus having somebody paid or stipended; and decide that every time you decide to use a volunteer for something like this, especially a program that you’re going away and doing a program – it’s not done in the middle of the normal ICANN process.
But you have to decide is the risk of having that person all of a sudden not be able to do it because as I said they got a paying job at the moment, worth it? And is the risk to the program a risk you want to take? And as I say, if the budget is not being objected to then I think cutting the budget when you’re sitting with the CFO and a sharpened pencil is one thing. Cutting before anybody’s even complained is quite another.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and from the close collaboration with ICANN staff we know that this budget would not pass the barriers within ICANN.
Avri Doria: I see. You’re saying they already complained.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, they did, exactly.
Avri Doria: Okay, that was a question I didn’t know the answer to. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So my proposal would be in order to keep it a little bit open, because I agree with what Wolf said earlier on – it might work for a first or a second trial to show what an ICANN Academy could be but it would not work endlessly on a voluntary basis. So my proposal is to build matrix which puts the items in the first row and then we can decide if this item or if this task can be fulfilled either on a voluntary basis or if it necessarily has to be paid for, or if staff can support this.
And these matrix can be shifted later on so to say that things which were done on a voluntary basis for the first or for the second Academy have to be paid later on. Or another point could be that some circumstances could be different in Toronto than in Asia-Pacific than in Africa than in Latin America so that you always have a little bit of flexibility within the budget to say “Okay, this can be done on a voluntary basis,” or “The accommodations at this place is very cheap so we can save some money here and can invite a lecturer which we can pay.”
So this would be my proposal to cut the budget sharply and to start working on these figures. My proposal would be that I prepare such matrix as – I don’t know if it’s possible – an open document to work on the Wiki space. I would have to ask staff to help me with this; or we can also shift to a Google shared document where such matrix would be and where we can also detail the tasks a little bit more for the people to get an idea of what means “preparation and organization costs.”
Are there any comments to this? Otherwise I would ask to vote on this proposal. No one raised his hand so if everybody understood, may I ask for your hand raised if you agree to the proposed procedure?
Heidi Ullrich: Sandra, this is Heidi. Could you please repeat that proposal before people vote?
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. My proposal would be that I prepare matrix as an open document to work and to comment on and open it for the Working Group to comment on these matrix, and these matrix will on the one hand show more detailed tasks for each single item and on the other hand it will differentiate between voluntary work, paid work, and staff work.
Tijani has his hand raised. Tijani, please. Tijani, you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Sandra. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, we hear you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. Okay, so I agree with your proposal but please don’t use the open doc. Please use the Wiki page. It’s easier for everyone.
Sandra Hoferichter: I agree. If this is possible of course I agree. Olivier, you have raised your hand. Olivier, please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier. I have a question with regards to your use of the word “matrix.” Is it metrics as in metrics or as in matrix, which is an actual table? Are you looking at putting together a table with headings and subheadings so we can look at each task in turn; or are you looking at putting together a set of markers that we will be able to provide some kind of information from quantitative data.
Sandra Hoferichter: No, I’m looking into a table.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, a table. Because in the discussion notes at the moment “metrics” has been written, which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. It says “Sandra proposed to build metrics,” so whoever’s taking the notes at the moment hasn’t got the foggiest clue of what you’re saying.
Sandra Hoferichter: Please apologize for my bad English. I am talking about a table which allows everybody to comment and to work on this.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: “To build a table…” Let’s be sure, let’s change the word “matrix” with “table.” And so “Sandra will prepare a table and open it to the Working Group to work on the table that will differentiate between paid work and voluntary work.” And I think at that point we’ve got something that we can work on. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, thank you Olivier. Tijani, you still have your hand raised. Would you like to add something?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, I cannot lower it – that’s all.
Sandra Hoferichter: Oh okay, okay. So may I ask you again to agree or disagree by using the Adobe Chat hand raise functions if I should prepare this table and ask staff to implement it into the Wiki space; and open it up to the entire Working Group to comment and to work on?
On the first hand, it is what we discussed with Filiz last August in [Mison] when we had the long discussion on it. We were saying to start with and for a pilot period it would be most probably wise to focus on a narrow target group of incoming ICANN officers – people who have to play a role on the GAC level, on the Board level, on the GNSO level, on the ALAC level immediately in the next couple of months.
So it was, at this stage it was not meant to be an ICANN Academy with capacity building programs like there are many other capacity building programs already existing addressed to support the broad bases of ALSes. So it’s not what we did in Dakar for AFRALO, inviting all the ALSes and giving everybody from the ALS level an opportunity to get familiar with ICANN. This is not a target group at this stage; this could be considered afterwards but the primary wish or the primary request from ICANN last August was to be more focused on the requirements of ICANN functioning and being focused on incoming officers.
And that was more or less the basis on which we wrote the existing proposal in August and submitted it to At-Large, and this should be clear and considered. So it’s no exclusive but it’s focused on a specific requirement for the start of the project. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. May I add something to underline what Wolf just said? In our Academy proposal, and the link is copied in the chat for both, under the Point #1 introduction, if you scroll down, a little bit further down it says “A, B, and C.” And actually A, B, and C, all these things include somehow a whole capacity building program for ICANN. And we were specifically asked only to work on B, and I repeated and enhanced a 20 hours lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Councils and Advisory Committees financed by ICANN.
I read in the chat that we should also include new staff members for training and I think this is a very good idea to keep. It was already mentioned in various discussions and I would strongly support this idea. So thank you, Heidi, for posting this again in the chat.
This is exactly what this Working Group is working for – nothing else. Everything else has to be done in another Working Group, in another Task Force or later on to combine all these different programs under one umbrella. And I’d like to also agree with Avri and maybe I would like to ask my question now so we can put this on the agenda, that we might decide to give this program, what we are doing here when the work is done a new name. We should not do this now but we should consider not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else in order to not confuse people.
May I ask for your hands raised? Please use the Adobe chat function for this. Then if you all agree to consider the rename of the… I had agreement before; now there is no agreement anymore. Wolf is not in favor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Sandra, may I ask if you don’t mind, I’d like to say that we can keep the “Academy” as the name, but the Academy now will only concentrate on one task. So it will be the Academy now. We are working on the Academy but we are only working on a single task, and we will include the other tasks afterwards.
Sandra Hoferichter: Right. So may I ask to indicate if you agree or disagree to consider to rename this program we are working on here; not to call it “ICANN Academy” but something else that can be considered later on? Can I ask you to show your agreement or disagreement?
I see two hands raised.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Hello?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I know that-
Sandra Hoferichter: Who is speaking please?
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: This is Sala.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, go ahead, Sala.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Thank you, Sandra. I know that this is specifically tasked to look at the ICANN Academy for the (interference). I think in terms of context, in terms of the budget allocations and whatnot and in terms of submissions for various (inaudible) within various RALOs in relation to ICANN Academy. When we say “ICANN Academy” it symbolizes training and that sort of thing, and given that it means training people from all over the world and that sort of thing, I think that we really need to perhaps rethink in terms of your 20-hour lecture, of what are the things available besides lectures within ICANN Academy?
Because if we limit it to the 20-hour lecture then it’s only a select few who get to benefit from the training as opposed to a lot more impact from a lot of the options that may be available and that sort of thing. And once we can say “Yes, we’re restricted to the ICANN Academy and the reason is because this is part of training, capacity building and information, and whether or not it’s going to be created in the other Task Forces I’m not too sure but it will definitely have an impact on the budget. And that is real (inaudible).
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Salanieta. Before I answer to this I’d like to ask other people to raise their hands – Avri, please? Avri, you might be muted.
Avri Doria: Sorry, I forgot this was the phone call where you had to use a *7 instead of a *6 to unmute. I am not doing well today.
Okay, I don’t think it really matters what it’s called at the moment – I don’t care if we call it “Fred” and work on it. I think we need to figure out… I think in terms of what this is doing, it’s maybe a pilot in terms of what one does for the ever. I see what’s being said, the Diplo model versus the ISOC model that we’re dealing with officers here, but remembering that some of these officers come in from Bloomfield that know absolutely nothing about ICANN, who know sometimes precious little about internet governance – the only thing is they happen to be respected in some field or another and aren’t just kids off the street.
Calling it “Academy” is fine; calling it a “Pilot Academy” is fine. As I said, calling it “Fred” is fine. I think what we need to do is figure out what it is we need to give. I think we’ll find that it’s very much the same as what would be given in a larger capacity building, and indeed I think what we’re doing is building their capacity – trying to give them the capacity to be functional their first year as opposed to coming in and basically feeling lost for their first year.
And with staff, and I really do think that what we need to do is take it back and say “New staff that’s going to be working with Working Groups need to get this, too,” because what happens is when new staff comes in “La, la, la – I’m a staff member, I’m going to help you do your work,” and they haven’t the faintest idea of the context they’re working in. And it takes them a year of confusing the Working Group before some of them end up being really, really, really good.
So I think that they have as great a need of it as do newly selected officers, but I think the curriculum is narrower because it’s more focused to a particular purpose but it’s really a pilot into what people were thinking of as the general capacity building that all and sundry can use. So let’s call it “Academy,” let’s call it “Pre-Academy”; let’s call it “Advanced Leadership Training,” let’s call it “Fred” – I don’t think it matters. Thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and now I would ask Olivier Crépin-Leblond, he raised his hand, too, to take the floor. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier for the transcript. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, very well.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, just wanted to check whether I had been muted or not muted, but okay. I just echo what Avri has been saying there; I totally agree with her apart from the term “ICANN Academy” where it has been pitched so far to staff as ICANN Academy. It has to remain named ICANN Academy because it has gained traction within ICANN as ICANN Academy, so that’s why the name has to remain ICANN Academy. But everything else that Avri said is absolutely correct and has my green light on.
We have to look at an enhanced 20-hour lecture program for new appointed ICANN officers for the Board, Council and Advisory Committees – that is it. Everything else – the capacity building of our communities and so on – is something that is a different program that is actually being dealt with and addressed from the At-Large Improvements Process which is an entirely separate process from this one.
We have willingly separated the processes so as for the ICANN Academy to proceed forward at a fast pace because there’s real, real demand today for this sort of thing. The capacity building, we know there is a demand – it’s already started. We’ve seen what’s happened in Africa and the AFRALO capacity building; that is a more local thing and that will probably be done through the Regional At-Large Organizations. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Olivier. In order to keep the agenda I don’t like to extend what you just said but I’d like to strongly support what Avri and Olivier just said. And I think we should stop this discussion here about the task of this Working Group. We are working on a 20-hour lecture course and nothing else. Everything else should be discussed somewhere else; in another working group, on another improvements workspace, on another task force.
And I also agree with the point that I hadn’t taken into consideration so far, that now that the name is somehow famous into the ears of staff and of the ICANN community we should maybe not rename the baby even if it’s not perfect for the moment but it could be improved in the future.
Okay, so let’s go to modification of the budget now and I ask everybody to open this first proposal published in August and go to the very bottom of this proposal, where under Item #8 it says “Draft Budget.” This budget was drafted with the help of Wolfgang Kleinwächter who is very much advanced and experienced in organizing lecture courses 20 and more hours, and he put together some figures and these figures were considered by ICANN as being far too high for the first trial.
And I do understand the point that asking for $90,000 US is pretty much and we have to be clear on what we need the money for. However, we have to adjust this proposal a little bit and I believe that on the first stage and the first trial to get this Academy or this program running and to grow and to let it grow, we have to start very low with the very large amount of voluntary work which means that I think some points in this budget can be captured by ICANN community members, leaders.
I think of the lecturers which are in this budget with $10,000 US. I think for the first trial at least we can skip those $10,000 US and ask voluntary leaders to arrive three days prior to an ICANN meeting or two days after and give a lecture to new appointed leaders to tell them about the experience and everything. And I would ask if you all agree to this proposal? Could you please use the Adobe Connect tool – it’s only one. Wolf raised his hand; Wolf, please.
Wolf Ludwig: Yes, it’s Wolf Ludwig for the record. I just went through the original budget which was a very rough estimate on probably more a current working project already, and I see another factor in it. I agree with what Sandra said before. It’s a pilot phase or state – I think we could reduce this budget post of the $10,000 for the lecturers.
The second one, what comes into my eyes, what is the most considerable one is the prep and the org costs of two times $25,000, and this in a pilot stage – I don’t know. I think once we did one or two pilots we’ll know much better the strengths and the weaknesses and the [lacks], etc., and then we can recalculate the [options] and the basic requirements. But for the pilot phase, I would also like to suggest to reduce considerably on the prep and the org costs of $50,000. If this is reduced to half or to $20,000, together with the budget post mentioned by Sandra already it would reduce the total amount considerably.
On the other budget posts, etc., I’m not sure. I think these are basics. Probably, yes, especially the travel one which is based on the assumption that in case it would happen the first time in Toronto in line with ICANN 2012 Autumn meeting then these travel costs for incoming new officers would be anyhow covered by ICANN Constituency Travel. So my suggestion would be besides the suggestion of Sandra to reduce by half at least the prep and the org costs. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Wolf. I think I made a mistake that I started from the bottom because I should have mentioned before that lodging and venue costs will be somehow essential, also as technical equipment. They might be adjustable a little bit but they will remain somehow in this stage. Lecturers could be lead into voluntary work; and also the preparation and organizing costs could be reduced; and I absolutely agree with Wolf. If a lot of the work is done on a voluntary basis, or if we offer staff support where we say “Okay, these people are engaged by ICANN already and they can be of great help to organize a thing.” And also [Michel Angelo] is the last point for discussion.
So I would propose, because of the tight timeline that we work on the budget on the mailing list or on the Wiki space including the whole Working Group; but we should somehow lead the way in which direction it should go to. So this would be actually the first task to fulfill until not even the 20th of January but earlier, so we have to do it over the Christmas break and at the beginning of next year.
We should quickly agree on where we can reduce costs and how much. And I would propose to leave this discussion then to the mailing list where the entire Working Group is able to participate because we as a Program Committee as far as I understood are there to lead the group but not to propose the actual budget itself.
I see Avri has raised her hand. Avri, please?
Avri Doria: Yes, thanks, and this time hopefully I got myself unmuted.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, you have.
Avri Doria: Okay, a couple questions. First I totally agree with you – this group is supposed to be helping to organize the conversation I thought and not to be the ones actually making decisions. Two, I’m questioning whether there’s been pushback on this budget that makes people feel they already need to cut it. Three, I’m wondering exactly what is involved in the prep and org costs.
A couple things I think we have to pay attention to is expecting people to do things as volunteers is good but when you use volunteers, especially whether it’s lecturers or organizations, what you do get is best effort. Now, some people’s best effort is really, really good and you can’t tell the difference between what they do for money and what they do as a volunteer activity. But in other cases, best effort is somebody committing to doing something, they get a paying gig and all of a sudden they’re gone because they’ve got to get paid… And if this isn’t paying, sorry, but that’s the way the decision goes.
So I think people should really consider that when they decide whether you’re going to… And especially when you’re bringing in Board members you also want to be careful not to create a two-tier environment where the teachers and the lecturers somehow end up serving the mighty new Board members who have come in to be lectured to and educated. So I think you have to be very careful with how you structure this.
So I’m not sure yet that I support the “Gee, let’s chop it and let’s make everybody work for free, and let’s then all travel at the cheapest level possible, except of course for the Board who will be treated special.” And so I think we’ve got to be careful in the doing, thanks.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri. Would it serve your objections if the budget is detailed a little bit more so to say that we write down what is on the preparation and organization costs? From my point of view as I am organizing summer schools I know what preparation and organization costs mean, but I do absolutely understand that somebody from the outside looking at this has not really a clear idea what is behind there.
So I would agree that we structure this a little bit more – what is preparation and organization costs – and put numbers behind to see what can be done on a voluntary basis and what not, and what can be done by staff. Would this satisfy your concern, Avri?
Avri Doria: Certainly. As I said, it wasn’t quite what I was getting at but sure. I think certainly we need to understand what the costs are, and I think it’s probably good to understand what risks the program is willing to take at each place of having someone volunteer versus having somebody paid or stipended; and decide that every time you decide to use a volunteer for something like this, especially a program that you’re going away and doing a program – it’s not done in the middle of the normal ICANN process.
But you have to decide is the risk of having that person all of a sudden not be able to do it because as I said they got a paying job at the moment, worth it? And is the risk to the program a risk you want to take? And as I say, if the budget is not being objected to then I think cutting the budget when you’re sitting with the CFO and a sharpened pencil is one thing. Cutting before anybody’s even complained is quite another.
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you, Avri, and from the close collaboration with ICANN staff we know that this budget would not pass the barriers within ICANN.
Avri Doria: I see. You’re saying they already complained.
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, they did, exactly.
Avri Doria: Okay, that was a question I didn’t know the answer to. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. So my proposal would be in order to keep it a little bit open, because I agree with what Wolf said earlier on – it might work for a first or a second trial to show what an ICANN Academy could be but it would not work endlessly on a voluntary basis. So my proposal is to build matrix which puts the items in the first row and then we can decide if this item or if this task can be fulfilled either on a voluntary basis or if it necessarily has to be paid for, or if staff can support this.
And these matrix can be shifted later on so to say that things which were done on a voluntary basis for the first or for the second Academy have to be paid later on. Or another point could be that some circumstances could be different in Toronto than in Asia-Pacific than in Africa than in Latin America so that you always have a little bit of flexibility within the budget to say “Okay, this can be done on a voluntary basis,” or “The accommodations at this place is very cheap so we can save some money here and can invite a lecturer which we can pay.”
So this would be my proposal to cut the budget sharply and to start working on these figures. My proposal would be that I prepare such matrix as – I don’t know if it’s possible – an open document to work on the Wiki space. I would have to ask staff to help me with this; or we can also shift to a Google shared document where such matrix would be and where we can also detail the tasks a little bit more for the people to get an idea of what means “preparation and organization costs.”
Are there any comments to this? Otherwise I would ask to vote on this proposal. No one raised his hand so if everybody understood, may I ask for your hand raised if you agree to the proposed procedure?
Heidi Ullrich: Sandra, this is Heidi. Could you please repeat that proposal before people vote?
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay. My proposal would be that I prepare matrix as an open document to work and to comment on and open it for the Working Group to comment on these matrix, and these matrix will on the one hand show more detailed tasks for each single item and on the other hand it will differentiate between voluntary work, paid work, and staff work.
Tijani has his hand raised. Tijani, please. Tijani, you have the floor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Sandra. Can you hear me?
Sandra Hoferichter: Yes, we hear you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay. Okay, so I agree with your proposal but please don’t use the open doc. Please use the Wiki page. It’s easier for everyone.
Sandra Hoferichter: I agree. If this is possible of course I agree. Olivier, you have raised your hand. Olivier, please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Sandra. It’s Olivier. I have a question with regards to your use of the word “matrix.” Is it metrics as in metrics or as in matrix, which is an actual table? Are you looking at putting together a table with headings and subheadings so we can look at each task in turn; or are you looking at putting together a set of markers that we will be able to provide some kind of information from quantitative data.
Sandra Hoferichter: No, I’m looking into a table.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, a table. Because in the discussion notes at the moment “metrics” has been written, which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. It says “Sandra proposed to build metrics,” so whoever’s taking the notes at the moment hasn’t got the foggiest clue of what you’re saying.
Sandra Hoferichter: Please apologize for my bad English. I am talking about a table which allows everybody to comment and to work on this.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: “To build a table…” Let’s be sure, let’s change the word “matrix” with “table.” And so “Sandra will prepare a table and open it to the Working Group to work on the table that will differentiate between paid work and voluntary work.” And I think at that point we’ve got something that we can work on. Thank you.
Sandra Hoferichter: Okay, thank you Olivier. Tijani, you still have your hand raised. Would you like to add something?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: No, I cannot lower it – that’s all.
Sandra Hoferichter: Oh okay, okay. So may I ask you again to agree or disagree by using the Adobe Chat hand raise functions if I should prepare this table and ask staff to implement it into the Wiki space; and open it up to the entire Working Group to comment and to work on?
I see we have a majority for being in favor of this suggestion: Tijani, Olivier, Carlos and Avri are in favor of this suggestion. So I would ask ICANN staff to put this I see we have a majority for being in favor of this suggestion: Tijani, Olivier, Carlos and Avri are in favor of this suggestion. So I would ask ICANN staff to put this down as an action item. I will prepare the table and ask you to implement this in the Wiki space and open it for the entire Working Group. We will send out a call to work on this proposal. Okay.
...
Sandra Hoferichter: Thank you. Olivier raised his hand. Olivier, please.
Wiki Markup
But what I was going to say, though, is in regards to having only two calls per month. I’m a little concerned because two calls a month goes very, very fast. You’ll find that calls fly by very quickly, and you just need one call where you have a few technical problems and that’s it – one of your two calls is gone. What I was going to suggest is that you schedule a call every week and if you do not require the call in the next week to take place you can always cancel it.
...
Avri Doria: Yes, thank you. This is Avri, and it’s related to this topic but it’s not specifically on Olga. It’s on the issue of who can participate in this Working Group.Working Group.
I had gotten the impression when we were speaking to, I guess it was [Bill Drake] and I know he’s also in EURALO; so many of us are in multiple things. But related to that, this wasn’t a closed working group and it was open to participation by others. And so I really just want to catch that from a factual point of view before going on with deciding that being a member… Wiki Markup
And in terms of Olga the issue sounds more like it’s a LACRALO issue – do they want to exclude her from LACRALO because of her GAC participation? That’s a separate issue from the one of whether this group is open and if it is open then whether she’s LACRALO or GAC would not be an issue. Thanks.
...
Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas to all of you and a successful start into 2012.
Wiki Markup
