Comments on the new Fellowship Selection Criteria

[Paul Muchene <paul@xxxxxxxxxx>]

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to ICANN for creating 
the Fellowship Program. Speaking as an ICANN fellow alumnus, this program is of 
inestimable value and has contributed immensely to enriching the ICANN 
community and the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance and dialogue.

Having gone through the document entitled Projected FY17 Improvements to the 
ICANN Fellowship Program, I would like to commend the DPRD for shifting the 
Fellowship’s focus to cater to the underserved and under-represented 
individuals around the world. One positive point, which I’ve noted is that the 
selection criteria is much broader in scope and not restricting itself to 
economic indicators for a designated country where a prospective applicant 
resides.

Nonetheless the criteria can be tweaked. It would be good if sexual orientation 
and religious persuasion is part of the criteria for determining underserved or 
underrepresented communities. This is because in several cases, sexual and 
religious minorities are barred from participating and contributing to their 
respective societies and for fear of persecution. These individuals could make 
a valuable contribution to the ICANN multi-stakeholder processes but because of 
obstacles they face be it at home or abroad, may be hindered from doing so.

Therefore you could modify the paragraph on the section of the revised 
fellowship applicant selection criteria to read:

Applicant from underserved or underrepresented communities or regions who 
express financial need. Specifically, prepared applicants with reasonable 
knowledge who have been hindered by social, economic and environmental factors 
such as poverty, race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, 
physical disabilities, and factors such as income, hygiene, and absence of a 
usual source of care or service such as basic education, health services, and 
public transportation


Secondly with respect to the selection criteria, I came across this paragraph 
on one of DPRD’s justifications:

To avoid inadvertent discrimination against fit candidates and allow for a 
richer pull of candidates that can better help enhance capacity–building within 
ICANN’s Multistakeholder model. Also, to have a more sophisticated, legitimate, 
approach to vetting candidates that can evolve as the program evolves.

It would be good to know what sophisticated, legitimate approach the fellowship 
committee has in mind to vetting candidates to the program. Perhaps a future 
call for Public comments on this issues would suffice and you can garner input 
from the community on the best way to go about this.

On the revised fellowship application form question, please define what it 
means to be a member of an indigenous peoples as this term could mean different 
things to different people.

Lastly, when evaluating applications a thorny issue of jurisdiction arises. 
Given that ICANN is a US corporation and has to abide by both federal and the 
state law of California, how would you admit underserved applicants into the 
fellowship program whose countries are subject to US sanctions and embargoes? 
Does the selection criteria have to always comply with US law? Does compliance 
extend to selecting fellows to an ICANN meeting taking place in a neutral 
country that doesn’t have qualms with those countries that have been embargoed?



Kindest Regards,


Paul Muchene

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail