That the GNSO should review and implement a revised training and development programme encompassing:
|Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):||CG - Accept with modification: Conditional on benefits being commensurate with costs.|
|Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness):|
MK: Accept as-is. Note potential budget implications.
|Basis for Assessment:|
|Work in Progress:||ICANN Academy, GNSO Learn, GNSO Council development session|
|Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress:|
Recommendation 22 (Continuous Development): That the GNSO should review and implement a revised training and development programme encompassing:
gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group
(Support) This is an excellent recommendation but to ensure its implementability it is essential to fulfill it in cost effective and flexible ways. Remote online training could be both cost-effective and could provide the flexibility that trainees would need.
(Do Not Support) Along with other Constituencies the ISPCP selects its Councilors carefully, well aware of the demands that will be placed upon them. Likewise those who stand for election to Council are also cognizant of the requirements that role demands. Considering each appointment is for an initial 2 year period and that the time demands placed on Councilors are already very significant, particularly as unpaid volunteers, subjecting each individual to specific training requirements would impose an additional burden and in some cases would be a disincentive to take on that role. The one day iniation session now planned following the Annula General Meeting should suffice. Whilst new Councilors invariably take time to settle in to the role, history would suggest that most manage to adapt without requiring specific individual training.
Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo
While generally supportive of training for GNSO councilors, the BC does have specific concerns about this recommendation. Assessment by whom? What is the “assessment and review” outcome/sanction? What if the one constituency “assesses” a councilor from another and finds them wanting – can they vote them off? Councilors are there at the choice of their constituency, not of anyone else. Respectfully, we repeat that these individuals are volunteers, elected by their SGs or Constituencies.
How are council members going to be evaluated?
Who will do the evaluation? It seems more reasonable to define a set of skills required by Councillors, and offer training. It would hardly be appropriate for a group withing ICANN (staff, for instance) to evaluate volunteers and send them for training. This recommendation needs a serious rethink.
(It Depends) We support the first three bullets, but wonder whether ‘formal assessment’ and ‘continual review’ is appropriate for volunteer Council members who at most can serve four years. It seems this could be a hindrance to finding good candidates for the very heavy duty required of Council members.
Agree with the first three bullets. Disagree with the last two. It is not clear from this recommendation, who would be performing the assessment and review of councillors/the council.
(Support) The ALAC fully supports this recommendation and believes that a segment of ICANN Academy can undertake the task of training. This ICANN-wide initiative could also benefit members of other communities by helping them better understand and take part in GNSO policy development activities.
Training, what level of training are you also recommending?