PUBLICCOMMENTCLOSE
2018-03-30 00:00:00.0 UTC
STATEMENTNAME
<p>ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation</p>
STATEMENTSTATUS
<p><ac:structured-macro ac:name="status" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="66bbb9fc-7c70-4fa1-b4cb-311d5621fda2"><ac:parameter ac:name="colour">Green</ac:parameter><ac:parameter ac:name="title">ADOPTED</ac:parameter></ac:structured-macro></p><p>12Y, 0N, 0A</p>
STATEMENTASSIGNEE
<p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa0802249f42f260149f4308aaf028e" /></ac:link></p><p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa0802249f42f260149f4308cd4058b" /></ac:link></p>
STAFFCONTACT
<p>ICANN Staff<br /><a href="mailto:fellowshipconsultation@icann.org">fellowshipconsultation@icann.org</a> </p>
STATEMENTNUMBER
<p><strong>AL-ALAC-ST-0318-03-01-EN</strong></p>
PUBLICCOMMENTINFO
<p><ac:structured-macro ac:name="view-file" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="5aa57766-0371-435b-91f8-d9eb4672602b"><ac:parameter ac:name="name"><ri:attachment ri:filename="ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation.pdf" /></ac:parameter><ac:parameter ac:name="height">250</ac:parameter></ac:structured-macro></p><p align="center"><strong>Fellowship Program at ICANN</strong></p><p align="center">Community Consultation Process to Review Current Fellowship Program</p><p><u>Background and Rationale</u></p><p>Supporting diverse, global participation in ICANN’s advice and policy-making work is a key part of the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1)">ICANN mission</a>. More specifically, one of the Core Values that guides the decisions and actions of ICANN states that “seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making” helps ensure that the global public interest is taken into account through a bottom-up, multistakeholder process. The <a href="https://www.icann.org/fellowshipprogram">I</a>CANN Fellowship Program was formed over a decade ago with the goal of bringing to ICANN individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities around the world. This works to help achieve ICANN's Strategic Goal 5.3: Empower current and new stakeholders to fully participate in ICANN activities. Since 2007, over 640 people from 133 countries have been awarded a fellowship, representing a wide diversity of gender, background, region, experience, and expertise. After the IANA Functions Stewardship Transition it has become evident that there is a need to strengthen the diversity of ICANN’s multistakeholder model. Though the Fellowship Program has been successful in bringing new people into that model, there is potential for it to be instrumental in helping ICANN achieve greater diversity by supporting participation from those countries and sectors with little to no participation.</p><p>Today, many ICANN Fellows are active participants in the ICANN community, serving in a number of leadership positions across ICANN’s community structures, as members of the ICANN Board of Directors, and the ICANN organization. Data from the recent <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-fellowship-program-10-year-survey-dprd-28jun17-en.pdf">ICANN Fellowship Program 10-</a><u> </u><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-fellowship-program-10-year-survey-dprd-28jun17-en.pdf">year Survey</a><u> </u>indicates that nearly 70% of respondents (218 Fellows) are engaged with their respective ICANN’s regional team, and 62% (198 Fellows) are currently involved in one or more ICANN community group. The following graphs provide a snapshot of the gender, regional, and sectoral diversity brought to ICANN through the Fellowship Program:</p><table resolved=""><colgroup><col /><col /><col /><col /></colgroup><tbody><tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p align="center"><br /></p><p>ICANN currently supports 180 Fellows annually, with program costs varying from one year to another, depending on ICANN public meeting locations. In FY18, the total program budget is</p><p>$557,000. The FY19 budget recommends a 50% reduction in the total number of Fellowship slots (to 90 annually), with a corresponding program budget of $402,000 for the same period.</p><p>The Fellowship Program is designed to meet the needs and priorities of the ICANN community by creating a broader and more diverse base of knowledgeable constituents. Planning for the next decade necessitates a broad community consultation involving a review of existing practices and defining the vision for the future. This will ensure that the program continues to evolve to meet current and anticipated community needs. It will also ensure that the program’s mission is focused to meet these needs efficiently and cost consciously.</p><p>Potential areas for improvement have been identified by the Fellows themselves. The <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-fellowship-program-10-year-survey-dprd-28jun17-en.pdf">ICANN</a><u> </u><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-fellowship-program-10-year-survey-dprd-28jun17-en.pdf">Fellowship Program 10-year Survey </a>indicates that while the program has already achieved a great deal, there is progress to be made towards increasing and strengthening the participation of fellows in most areas of ICANN's work. Facilitating entry into ICANN through the program is one element, but there is also a need to streamline how fellows engage in the community’s policy development and advice work subsequent to their fellowship. Although the program has been successful in bringing newcomers into ICANN’s multistakeholder work, structures and processes, this review offers the opportunity to revisit methods used to help Fellowship participants to become meaningful contributors to ICANN work. Discussions with the community have also touched on the need to increase efficiency and effectiveness. As ICANN´s budget has become tighter, it is necessary to prioritize and make the most of the allocated resources. Reviewing the program will help us to determine these priorities. Improvements must be strategic and considered against ICANN’s Budget and Operating Plan.</p><p><u>Overview of Current Processes</u></p><ul><li>Applications open 6-7 months prior to the relevant ICANN meeting to allow time for the candidates to apply and be selected 4 months in advance of travel dates; this also allows time for Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) checks, substitutions when necessary, and for the final travelers list to be submitted to the ICANN Travel team 90- days prior to travel dates.</li></ul><ul><li>Sixty fellows are supported at each of the ICANN meetings. The ICANN Policy Forum (Meeting B), is restricted to actively engaged Fellowship Alumni due to the nature of the forum: 4-day work session for ICANN communities.</li></ul><ul><li>The Fellowship Program provides a "fast-track" experience at ICANN meetings, including opportunities to network and presentations designed to facilitate understanding of ICANN processes and communities.</li></ul><ul><li>Fellows are provided with a stipend, economy class airfare, and hotel accommodation. Fellowship recipients are expected to engage with the ICANN Fellowship Office, Program alumni, coaches, and their selected peers prior to, during, and after the ICANN meeting. They are also expected to actively contribute to ICANN processes upon completion of the program.</li></ul><ul><li>Each fellow is required to submit a summary report to ICANN within one month of the end of the Program; these reports outline Fellows’ experiences during the program, as well as his or her thoughts on future contributions to the ICANN community.</li></ul><ul><li>The Fellowship Program follows a 3x participation guideline, acknowledging that most first-time fellows are just beginning to understand the ICANN multistakeholder model and the work of ICANN. Second and third-time fellows, however, are expected to build on their initial experience with the end goal of becoming engaged and participating in one of the <a href="https://www.icann.org/community#groups">ICANN communities</a>. The Fellowship Selection Committee can use its discretion when selecting eligible candidates for additional fellowships; one such opportunity is for alumni to serve as coaches.</li></ul><ul><li>Potential fellows are assessed by an <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/committee-2012-02-25-en">independent selection committee </a>that ensures the criteria are met and ranks each applicant through a <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-assessment-process-2016-09-08-en">scoring process </a>prioritizing those who also demonstrate the following:</li></ul><p>○ Diversity in gender, sector, experience, expertise</p><p>○ Member of an underrepresented or underserved community</p><p>○ Need for financial support</p><p>Applicants’ experience and references may also impact final selections.</p><p>As noted above, the long-term sustainability of the Fellowship Program requires consideration and consultation with the community. In the spirit of greater accountability and transparency, the ICANN organization will begin strategic conversations with the community about the future of the Fellowship Program. As part of this, the ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation to examine and assess the best approach to review the purpose, value, and resources needed to continue support through this program. The ICANN organization will collect feedback and views from the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and their constituent groups. This information will guide resource planning for future Operating Plans and Budgets.</p><p><u>Proposed Consultation Plan and Timeline</u></p><p>The Public Responsibility Support (PRS) department has drafted a questionnaire to begin the community consultation. PRS team members are available to speak with community groups about the current Fellowship program and the questionnaire at ICANN61 or remotely. Responses to the questionnaire will be collected through 30 March 2018.</p><p>The answers to the survey questions will inform more targeted future engagements, which may include focus groups at ICANN meetings. PRS will draw from the resulting feedback and questionnaire to revise the current Fellowship program, consulting with relevant ICANN organization departments and community groups, as necessary. The revised Fellowship Program draft will be shared with all community groups for initial feedback. PRS will capture this input and update the draft program processes accordingly. The draft Fellowship program will then be posted for public comment in June – August 2018, allowing for the standard 40-day (minimum) process.</p><p>Once all feedback is received from the community groups and the public comment proceeding, PRS will prepare the final draft of the new Fellowship Program in coordination with the relevant ICANN organization departments and recommend a target implementation date. PRS will brief all community groups on the updated Fellowship program at ICANN64.</p><p>PRS will then work with the relevant ICANN organization departments to prepare for implementation of the updated Fellowship Program. Note that the Fellowship Program schedule is planned six months in advance, so implementation of the revised program will take effect at least two meetings after the final program processes are published.</p><table resolved=""><tbody><tr><td><br /></td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p align="center"><br /></p><p><u>Questionnaire</u></p><h1>Program Goals and Vision</h1><ol><li>What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured?</li></ol><ol><li>The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your group’s opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal?</li></ol><ol><li>In your group’s opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program?</li></ol><h1>Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group</h1><ol><li>Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group?</li></ol><ol><li>Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts.</li></ol><ol><li>How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc?</li></ol><h1>Selection Processes</h1><ol><li>Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process?</li></ol><ol><li>An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why?</li></ol><ol><li>For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest?</li></ol><h1>Program Size</h1><ol><li>Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size?</li></ol><ol><li>If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort?</li></ol><h1>Program Structure</h1><ol><li>When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation?</li></ol><ol><li>Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose?</li></ol><ol><li>Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting?</li></ol><h1>Information Available on Program</h1><ol><li>Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how?</li></ol><ol><li>Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful.</li></ol><h1>General Questions</h1><ol><li>The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program?</li></ol><ol><li>With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program?</li></ol><ol><li>Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?</li></ol><p><br /></p><p>You are welcome to append any general comments on the ICANN Fellowship Program community consultation.</p>
FINALVERSION
<p><ac:structured-macro ac:name="view-file" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="3f113f66-4291-4d5e-ae8a-554d5c9d93cd"><ac:parameter ac:name="name"><ri:attachment ri:filename="AL-ALAC-ST-0318-03-01-EN.pdf" /></ac:parameter><ac:parameter ac:name="height">250</ac:parameter></ac:structured-macro></p>
FINALDRAFT
<p><strong>Summary: </strong></p><p>The ALAC has noted that the Fellowship Program has only successfully integrated a small percentage of its alumni to be actively engaged and participating in At-Large specifically, but also other SO/ACs, to support their policy-related goals and objectives. It has been suggested that changes are required in order to achieve greater effectiveness of the Program not only to meet At-Large policy goals relating to the DNS. Metrics are needed to monitor effectiveness. The Fellowship has been more effective in recruiting people to be active in At-Large administrative activities and outreach.</p><p><strong>Program Goals and Vision</strong></p><p>1. What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured?</p><p>The ALAC sees the objective of the Program as the Integration of Fellowship alumni into the various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN, with a focus on policy-related activities, The Program should be viewed as an investment by ICANN because the output from the alumni has the potential to benefit not only At-Large but across all sections of the ICANN ecosystem. However, there is a need to ensure that metrics are used regularly to assess return on this investment and also to ensure that the Program is helping to develop Fellows who can not only commit to the policy work-related needs of the various sections of ICANN.</p><p>Those supporting ICANN's strategic goals for global outreach and engagement in their communities should also be tracked to what extent possible.</p><p>2. The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your group’s opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal?</p><p>Although there have been a number of notable successes, the Program appears to be more effective at raising awareness rather than in generating workers actively engaging in regular At-Large policy activities.</p><p>What is not visible within the global ICANN community and therefore is not accounted for, is that in many of these underserved and under-represented communities are small pockets of proactive former Fellows promoting ICANN and its work through their own community based channels, and some are creating ALSes that join in with At-Large activities when they can. It is there that the program has in fact had a more positive impact, which is at least a start at grassroots level. Access issues are a major barrier to greater participation by those from underserved regions. </p><p>3. In your group’s opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program?</p><p>Yes, it must still be a goal but with a target of success as appropriately measured by the different AC/SOs dependent on their needs. More statistical data on follow-on activities after a Fellowship would identify how the Fellowship could be used effectively both within ICANN and their local communities. The value of the Program by some assessment mechanism could evaluate whether the basic outcomes of the Program have been achieved - particularly to do with what they have learned about ICANN and how they aim to use this knowledge in future engagement. Initiating something in their home community may already be an anticipated outcome, knowing what their limitations are. </p><p><strong> Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group</strong></p><p>4. Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group?</p><p>At-Large has had a number of great successes with Fellowship alumni. The greatest value has come from those who have chosen to devote time and energy to ICANN post-Fellowship. The vast majority of these, however, have become active in outreach and administrative roles and not policy-related.</p><p>This could be enhanced if the Fellowship Program could include those who are already members of the Internet community, within organisations that are already motivated to work with the ICANN community for a better good, and already have people within their system to support them to become more engaged in our community. On a wider scale, SO/ACs could recommend active participants from their communities to take part in a Fellowship Program that could focus on policy development upskilling similar to that of the ICANN Leadership Academy. This would create a new stream of entrants, but the current program has become too complex and confusing for new community members and too broad and repetitive for those already participating in ICANN. </p><p>If we are to have more successes with encouraging Fellows to participate in policy activities, changes must be made to have coaches and mentors who are themselves active in these areas.</p><p>5. Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts.</p><p>Yes, but our formal contact with the Fellows program tends to be less regular - more due to the lack of availability of ALAC leaders and because of their full schedules at ICANN meetings. Selected representatives (former Fellows) make themselves available to participate in Fellowship activities and to share messages about At-Large. ALAC members also make a point to visit and engage with Fellows at the Fellows booth at ICANN meetings. But the ALAC could, and will, make more of a concerted effort to draw people into our activities. In order to improve their outreach, former At-Large fellows could form their own working group or outreach group to provide resources for new/returning fellows </p><p>6. How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc?</p><p>We are willing to participate. At-Large has rich expertise that could contribute to the development of Fellows and provide suitable mentors who could familiarise them with our systems and activities, but that would presume filtering candidates who have a particular interest in our areas. It must be noted, that while at ICANN meetings, most of our funded travelers (At-Large members who, not being employed in the domain industry, cannot self-fund) are heavily committed and would have limited time to devote to Fellows. Former Fellows and some others on the ALAC and on RALO leadership teams are particularly good at maintaining contact with Fellows during their activities, and in engaging them to join At-Large working groups and sessions. </p><p><strong>Selection Processes</strong></p><p>7. Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process?</p><p>The ALAC would be willing to be part of the selection process, based on guidelines/good practices produced by the ALAC for this purpose, but also in order to increase the transparency of the process and improve accountability of the Fellows programme.</p><p>Prospective fellows must be willing to participate in introductory courses from ICANN Learn. If there are not suitable courses there that will provide the needed background, they should be created. </p><p>One of the problems may be the categories used in the selection process. At-Large fits best into "civil society" but we do not comfortably fit into the typical model of "civil society". Therefore we may not be selecting for potential Fellows who have a real interest in user-issues.</p><p>It should be clear that the Program is not tourism, but a path towards active engagement. It was identified by a former fellow and now coach/mentor, that in order to get real engagement from Fellows, there has to be a sense of “giving back to the community”. Despite the best efforts of a mentor/coach some Fellows still do not understand the need for their engagement and involvement in the PDP process.</p><p>It is difficult to measure a Fellow's motivation, commitment or willingness to participate in calls at all hours of the day and night or to read through screeds of documents in order to make a comment that will contribute to an At-Large statement. All of these qualities cannot be assessed by their attendance at one ICANN meeting trying to absorb everything about a particular SO/AC of interest in one go. However, after reflecting on this experience post-meeting, they should be able to demonstrate, that they have what it takes to become a committed "ICANNer", and get another chance to receive a Fellowship. Post-meeting Fellows need to be set a task that ascertains what they learned and how it can make a difference to their lives and the lives of others in their community. There should be an expectation for returning Fellows, especially for those who have had multiple opportunities, to join a working group and actively participate, but only a small number actually do.</p><p>Returning Fellows should come with a specific AC/SO/Constituency in mind and these must be balanced over the organization. This should be accompanied by the identification of coaches from the appropriate group.</p><p>The effectiveness of Fellows returning as mentors and coaches should be evaluated. Currently only past fellows have the opportunity to be a coach, yet, having that as the requirement may not help us achieve the results that we believe the program needs to achieve. An ICANN Learn course specifically for Fellow mentors/coaches would be helpful – not only to give guidance on how to better engage “new Fellows” but also to encourage them to learn more about ICANN's mission and how they can be directed to help to achieve this. </p><p>8. An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why?</p><p>We would like to see a study of who (and with how many trips) actually becomes active in ICANN.</p><p>9. For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest?</p><p>We support this limitation IF there is measure to demonstrate that these people are already involved in policy activities within a particular SO/AC and are developing their knowledge and skills for participation. Participating in the Forum meeting should require the Fellows to then have done some homework first before they come to the forum meeting based on the issues to be discussed, and this can provide part of the Program content for this meeting, so that Fellows can be better informed for active participation in the policy meetings as well as the Public Forum..</p><p><strong>Program Size</strong></p><p>10. Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size?</p><p>When the Fellowships were first established there were 15 Fellows. This was increased to 30 which was considered an effective group size, and At-Large supported increasing it. It may be that 60 was overreaching and there are not sufficient available resources (throughout the community) to integrate them. </p><p>11. If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort?</p><p>Our priority would be migration of Fellows to active participation and a reasonable part of those must be willing to participate in policy processes. This is too expensive a program to use it as purely dissemination of information about ICANN.</p><p><strong>Program Structure</strong></p><p>12. When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation?</p><p>It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings. But we would expect the basics of an understanding of what ICANN is, what it’s mission aims to achieve, how it is constructed and the purposes of each of its constituencies. A specific pre-meeting ICANN Learn course and perhaps an online test before an application for Fellowship is accepted may establish a standard of knowledge required before starting work on more advanced policy development study during the face-to-face Program. Once at the meeting, it would be handy for first-time Fellows to attend sessions of the various SO/ACs so that they can see the policy development processes of the different SO/ACs in action and build better understanding of this from within the Program, but it would be expected that returning Fellows would get involved somewhere within the system.. </p><p>One of our more seasoned veterans in At-Large said: “As long as we still have fellows at the public meeting asking questions why ICANN doing nothing to regulate dangerous content, we are clearly not getting the selection/preparation right.”</p><p>13. Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose?</p><p>No, but it would be good if we first of all submitted a list of sessions that might prove useful to them. Fellows should have a good understanding of ICANN’s purpose and of the roles of the SO/ACs within it, preferably before they get to make contact with the SO/ACs. In this way, subsequent learning within the Program is more relevant and meaningful, and Fellows can make better sense of what is going on when they visit a particular SO/AC session later on in the week. </p><p>14. Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting?</p><p> Sadly, no.</p><p><strong> Information Available on Program</strong></p><p>15. Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how?</p><p>A presentation either via teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start in order to get feedback from the different SO/ACs and for them to suggest content matching their roles and activities.</p><p>16. Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful.</p><p>Yes, we believe so.</p><p><strong>General Questions</strong></p><p>17. The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program?</p><p>At-Large focuses on issues that impact individual end-users. A passionate consideration for end-users as well as knowledge of ICANN, is the key. See also the reference to “Civil Society” in Question 7.</p><p>18. With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program?</p><p>We are most satisfied with the relatively small number of people who have gone on to make At-Large their home and productively work with us. We would like to see more!</p><p>19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?</p><p>We have some additional thoughts. </p><ul><li>The criteria (<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-applicant-criteria-2016-09-08-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-applicant-criteria-2016-09-08-en</a>) puts significant emphasis on "Internet Governance". While ICANN <strong>IS</strong> part of Internet Governance, it is not the part that many people think about. The criteria do not once mention the DNS or stability, security and resiliency of the DNS, which is ICANN's mission. And from an At-Large perspective, the criteria vaguely refer to "a member of civil society and engaged in studies or work related to Internet issues that reflect regional strategies or current work in ICANN" - this is not a particularly clear statement. Where does it make reference to our interest in how the 4 billion Internet users are affected by decisions that ICANN makes?</li><li>According to the ICANN budget, in FY19, the average employee costs ICANN $180,919. The average Fellowship traveler cost $2,690, or 67 travelers per average employee. So the entire cost of the fellowship program is well under 1% of staff costs. If, as At-Large believes, it is a program that should help create active volunteer workers, it must be structured to actually do that, and funded accordingly to do that effectively. This is not to say the program needs more money - but all costs must be looked at in perspective.</li><li>One of the difficulties of assessing the Fellowship program is that we have no other reference group (for instance, the people who come into ICANN directly, not through the Fellowship route). If we had such a reference group, one could compare the retention between the two groups, and then do a cost-benefit analysis. Maybe a later study can do this</li><li>While getting underserved and underrepresented communities/regions participating is of utmost priority, we believe the programme should not restrict participation based on geographical location</li></ul><p> </p>
FIRSTDRAFT
<p><strong>Summary: </strong></p><p lang="en-NZ"><span style="color: #333399;"><span style="color: #0000ff;">The ALAC has noted that the Fellowship program has only successfully integrated a small percentage of its graduates to be actively engaged and participating in At-Large specifically, but also other SO/ACs, to support their policy-related goals and objectives. Changes are required in order to achieve greater effectiveness of the Program not only to meet At-Large policy goals relating to the DNS, but also to achieve ICANN goals and expectations for global outreach and engagement. Metrics are required to assess how these essential outputs are being achieved by Fellows within ICANN as well as within their home communities. </span></span></p><p><strong>Program Goals and Vision</strong></p><p>1. What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> The ALAC sees the objective of the Program as the Integration of "graduates" into the various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN activities, The programme should be viewed as an investment by ICANN because this graduate output has the potential to benefit not only At-Large but across all sections of the ICANN ecosystem. However, there is a need to ensure that metrics are used regularly to assess return on this investment and also to ensure that the Program is helping to develop Fellows who can not only commit to the work-related needs of the various sections of ICANN, but are also prepared to support ICANN's strategic goals for global outreach and engagement in their communities.</span></p><p>2. The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your group’s opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> Although there have been a number of notable successes, the Program appears to be more effective at raising awareness rather than in generating workers actively engaging in regular At-Large activities, .</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> What is not visible to the global ICANN community and therefore is not accounted for, is that in many of these underserved and under-represented communities are small pockets of proactive former Fellows promoting ICANN and its work through their own community based channels, and some are creating ALSes that join in with At-Large activities when they can. It is there that the program has in fact had a really positive impact, which is at least a start at grassroots level. It is their way of making up for their </span><span style="color: #0000ff;"> lack of access to communication tools and broadband access that developed country colleagues take for granted. Their lack of presence at ICANN meetings post-Fellowship or even at ICANN meetings online, may give a perception that they don’t care, but in fact some of our Fellows will not be able to participate for several more years until communication conditions improve in their countries, and despite their own good intentions.</span></p><p>3. In your group’s opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">Yes, it must still be a goal but with a target of success as appropriately measured by the different AC/SOs dependent on their needs. </span><span style="color: #0000ff;">More statistical data on follow-on activities after a Fellowship would identify how the Fellowship could be used effectively both within the ICANN and their local communities. The value of the programme could be assessed externally to test whether the basic outcomes of the programme have been achieved - particularly to do with what they have learned about ICANN and how they aim to use this knowledge in future engagement. Initiating something in their home community may already be an anticipated outcome, knowing what their limitations are. </span></p><p><strong> Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group</strong></p><p>4. Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">At-Large has had a number of great successes with Fellowship alumni. The greatest value has come from the relatively few who have chosen to devote time and energy to ICANN post-Fellowship.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">This could be enhanced if the Fellowship program could include members who are already members of an ALS or ISOC Chapter, which are organisations that are already motivated to work with the ICANN community for a better good, and already have people within their system to support them to become more engaged in our community. If we continue to take random and disconnected persons, they will continue to come and go and we will continue to repeat mistakes of the past</span></p><p>5. Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts.</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">Yes, but our formal contact with the Fellows program tends to be less regular - more due to the lack of availability of ALAC leaders. because of the full schedules at ICANN meetings. Selected representatives (former Fellows) make themselves available to participate in Fellowship activities and to share messages about At-Large. ALAC members also make a point to visit and engage with Fellows at the Fellows booth at ICANN meetings. But we could make more of a concerted effort to draw people into our activities.</span></p><p>6. How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">At-Large fits best into "civil society" but we do not comfortably fit into the typical model of "civil society".</span> <span style="color: #0000ff;">We are willing to participate. </span><span style="color: #0000ff;">At-Large has rich expertise that could contribute to the development of Fellows and provide suitable mentors who could familiarise them with our systems and activities, </span><span style="color: #0000ff;">but that would presume filtering candidates who have a particular interest in our areas. It must be noted, that while at ICANN meetings, most of our funded travelers (At-Large members who, not being employed in the domain industry, cannot self-fund) are heavily committed and would have limited time to devote to Fellows. Former Fellows who work within RALO leadership teams are particularly good at maintaining contact with the Fellowship team. </span></p><p><strong>Selection Processes</strong></p><p>7. Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">The ALAC would be willing to be part of the selection process in order to increase the transparency of the process and improve accountability of the whole programme.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Prospective fellows must be willing to take intro courses from ICANN Learn. If there are not suitable courses there that will provide the needed background, they should be created.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">It should be clear that the Program is not tourism, but a path towards active engagement. It was identified by a former fellow and now coach/mentor, that in order to get real engagement from Fellows, there has to be a sense of “giving back to the community”. Despite the best efforts of a mentor/coach some Fellows still do not understand the purpose of engagement and involvement in the PDP process.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">It is difficult to measure a Fellow's motivation, commitment, willingness to participate in calls at all hours of the day and night or to read through screeds of documents in order to make a comment that will contribute to an At-Large statement - All of these qualities cannot be assessed by their attendance at one ICANN meeting trying to absorb everything about a particular SO/AC of interest in one go. However,after reflecting on this experience post-meeting, they should be able to demonstrate,that they have what it takes to become a committed ICANNer, and get another go. They need to be set a task that ascertains what they learned and how it can make a difference to their lives and the lives of others in their community... and they need to join a policy group and actively participate - not just sit on the Adobe Connect and not say a word, and communicate more than just social media entries.<br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Returning Fellows should come with a specific AC/SO/Const in mind and these must be balanced over the organization. This should be accompanied by the identification of coaches from the appropriate group.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">The effectiveness of fellows returning as mentors and coaches should be evaluated. Selecting coaches based purely on them being past fellows is a poor way of achieving the results that we believe the program needs to achieve. An ICANN Learn course specifically for Fellow mentors/coaches would be helpful – not only to give guidance on how to better engage “new Fellows” but also to encourage them to learn more about ICANN's mission and how our role in At-Large can help to achieve this. </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">The Fellowship program currently only allows people to be a coach if they were a previous fellow. Experienced At-Large members from North America or Europe, for example, are denied the ability to mentor or coach new fellows since they were never a fellow themselves. This is not a fair rule and should be overturned although the implication is that they may need additional funding because only ex-Fellows will be funded. </span></p><p>8. An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">We would like to see a study of who (and with how many trips) actually becomes active in ICANN on an ongoing basis prior to addressing this.</span></p><p>9. For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">We support this limitation IF there is data to demonstrate that these people participate in the policy activities and do so across the community. If they are not known to be already participating in policy activities which requires them to have done some homework first before they come to the forum meeting, then why are they being invited. </span></p><p><strong>Program Size</strong></p><p>10. Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> When the Fellowships were first established there were 15 Fellows, </span><span style="color: #0000ff;">30 was considered an effective group size and At-Large supported increasing it. It may be that 60 was overreaching and there are not sufficient available resources (throughout the community) to integrate them.</span></p><p>11. If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Our priority would be migration of Fellows to active participation. This is too expensive a program to use it as purely dissemination of information about ICANN.</span></p><p><strong>Program Structure</strong></p><p>12. When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings. But the basics of an understanding of what ICANN is, what it’s mission aims to achieve, how it is constructed and the purposes of each of its constituencies. Once at the meeting, it would be handy for them to attend sessions of the various sectors so that they can get a better understanding of each sectors PDP program which should be the principal focus of the Fellowship program. These observations could provide the basis for a better understanding of the differences between the SO/ACs and their policy development processes.</span></p><p>13. Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> No, but it would be good if we first of all submitted a list of sessions that might prove useful to them. </span><span style="color: #0000ff;">If Fellows have a good understanding of what ICANN’s purpose and role is, then the Fellowship program could include backgrounding of some of the important issues currently under discussion by the SOs/ACs that they may visit – otherwise the discussions aren’t going to make any sense to them.</span></p><p>14. Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">Sadly, no.</span></p><p><strong> Information Available on Program</strong></p><p>15. Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> A presentation either via teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start, but to get feedback from the different SO/ACs to suggest content matching their roles and activities.</span></p><p>16. Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful.</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> Yes, I believe so.</span></p><p><strong>General Questions</strong></p><p>17. The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program?</p><p> <span style="color: #0000ff;">At-Large focuses on issues that impact end-users. A passionate consideration for end-users as well as knowledge of ICANN, is the key.</span></p><p>18. With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program?</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">We are most satisfied with the relatively small number of people who have gone on to make At-Large their home and productively work with us. We would like to see more!</span></p><p>19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?</p><ul><li><span style="color: #0000ff;">The criteria (<a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-applicant-criteria-2016-09-08-en" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: #0000ff;">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fellowship-applicant-criteria-2016-09-08-en</span></a>) puts significant emphasis on "Internet Governance". While ICANN <strong>IS</strong> part of Internet Governance, it is not the part that many people think about. The criteria do not once mention the DNS or stability, security and resiliency of the DNS, which is ICANN's mission. And from an At-Large perspective, the criteria vaguely refer to "a member of civil society and engaged in studies or work related to internet issues that reflect regional strategies or current work in ICANN" - this is not a particularly clear statement. Where does it make reference to our interest in how the 4 billion Internet users are affected by decisions that ICANN makes?</span></li><li><span style="color: #0000ff;">According to the ICANN budget, in FY19, the average employee costs ICANN $180,919. The average Fellowship traveler cost $2,690, or 67 travelers per average employee. So the entire cost of the fellowship program is well under 1% of staff costs. If, as At-Large believes, it is a program that should help create active volunteer workers, it must be structured to actually do that, and funded accordingly to do that effectively. This is not to say the program needs more money - but all costs must be looked at in perspective.</span></li></ul>
CALLOPEN
2018-03-28 00:00:00.0 UTC
CALLCLOSE
2018-03-30 00:00:00.0 UTC
VOTEOPEN
2018-04-03 00:00:00.0 UTC
VOTECLOSE
2018-04-06 00:00:00.0 UTC
SUBMISSION
2018-04-02 00:00:00.0 UTC