[ALAC] Fellowship on today's ALAC Agenda

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Mar 27 19:06:11 UTC 2018

Attached and in the body of this message are the 
notes for today's discussion of the Fellowship on the ALAC Call.


ALAC Meeting – 27 March 2018 – Fellowship Questionnaire

Program Goals and Vision

1.  What does your group believe should be the 
objective of the Fellowship Program? How would 
the success of this objective be measured?

>         Integration of "graduates" into the 
> various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN activities

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?

>         It is moderately effective in getting 
> people to know about ICANN. Although there have 
> been a number of notable successes, it is more 
> effective at raising awareness than in generating workers.

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?

>         Yes, it must still be  a goal but with 
> a target of measurable success as measured by the AC/SOs.

Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group

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?

>         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.

5.  Does your group make efforts to involve, 
educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? 
If so, please describe these efforts.

>         Yes, but it is rather haphazard. We 
> engage at ICANN meetings, but there is no 
> concerted effort to draw people into our activities.

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?

>         We are willing to participate. Mentors 
> are possible, but that would presume filtering 
> candidates who have a particular interest in our areas.

Selection Processes

7.  Are you aware of the Fellowship selection 
process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process?

>         Yes, we are willing. Returning Fellows 
> should come with a specific AC/SO/Const in mind 
> and these must be balanced over the 
> organization. This shouldbe accompanied by the 
> identification of coaches from the appropriate group.
>         The effectiveness of fellows returning 
> as mentors and coaches should be evaluated.
>         Prospective fellows must be willing to 
> take intro courses on ICANN Learn. If there are 
> not suitable courses there that will provide 
> the needed background, they should be created.
>         It should be clear that this is not 
> tourism, but a path towards active engagement.
>         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".
>         And lastly, 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.

8.  An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up 
to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why?

>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.

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?

>We support it IF there is data to demonstrate 
>that these people participate in the policy 
>activities and do so across the community.

Program Size

10. Considering your responses to previous 
questions, would you suggest making the program 
larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size?

>30 was a very effective group 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.

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?

>Migration of Fellows to active participation. 
>This is too expensive a program to use it as 
>purely dissemination of information about ICANN.

Program Structure

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?

>         It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings.

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?

>         No, but it would be good to have us 
> submit a list of sessions that would prove useful to them.

14. Do you feel that you have enough time to 
engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting?

>         Sadly, no.

Information Available on Program

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?

>         A presentation either via 
> teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start.

16. Are your community members aware of the 
differences between the Fellowship and 
NextGen at ICANN Programs? If not, please state what 
type of clarification would be useful.

>         Yes, I believe so.

General Questions

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?

>         At-Large focuses on issues that impact 
> end-users. A passionate consideration for 
> end-users, those without the knowledge of ICANN, is the key.

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?

>         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!

19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180327/e1e699e4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fellowship-20180327.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180327/e1e699e4/Fellowship-20180327.pdf>

More information about the ALAC mailing list