Members of the Africa/Europe Forum group agreed that they should be careful not to over-organize, and to leave ample space for the fellows to participate in the organization of the forum. The following conclusions were reached regarding the logistics of the forum:

　

1. Send proposals for sub-topics to Tim Sullivan by e-mail; these suggestions for sub-topics will be forwarded to the participants of the forum to make the final decision. Michael Frischenschlager suggested the topics be created so as to capitalize on the regional division of the forums. Caroline Yang suggested that the members of the group submit proposals for sub-topics. Jan Persens said that the diversity of the participants itself will challenge fellows' views on diversity; this also means that the forum should not be overly formalized; the academic aspect of the forum should be a starting point for something else to take off. Daniel Warner suggested to have speakers such as representatives of governments or NGOs who can provide insight into different aspects of leadership.

　

2. Organize a concert at the forum with honoraria to be paid to the musicians. Gretchen Amussen pointed out two difficulties in musicians' participation in the forum. One is that they are not trained to present speeches in a foreign language. The other is that the careers of performing artists are often short, and participating at a forum not directly related to their field may be seen by them as an unpaid period of time away from their work, which would considerably discourage them to participate. Michael Frischenschlager was of the opinion that arts schools too need to educate their students to be able to contribute to society. Tim Sullivan said that a form of participation other than presenting a paper could be considered for the performing artists. Caroline Yang suggested that a performance might be a way to incorporate musicians in the forum. Julia Gonzales said that music is an important part of culture, and suggested that participants be encouraged to bring music with them to the forum.

　

3. Ask the Scholarship Division for flexibility in selecting participants. Many institutions expressed concerns with regard to prescribed rules for selection, e.g. difficulties in providing participation by current fellows as they are all abroad (Renata Dobrowolska), or inability to comply with the gender balance condition as there is only one current fellow to chose from (Helmut Papp). AUC will prepare a half-page theme description that may be used with potential nominees by March.

　

4. Organize a service-learning program to be incorporated into the forum. Daniel Warner inquired about the value-added aspect of the forum. Tim Sullivan suggested that enabling the participants to see the "flip-side" of Cairo might provide that value-added aspect.

　

5. Inquire about the possibility of obtaining funding for conducting a questionnaire/survey on issues to be discussed during the forum, the results of which will be used as a basis for discussion. Julia Gonzales put forward this proposal, and suggested that the Scholarship Division be approached for possible funding. Responses to the topics to be discussed would provide fresh material that fellows could reflect on and would facilitate discussion.

　

6. Send suggestions about the questionnaire to be filled in by the selected participants to Tim Sullivan by e-mail. Caroline Yang suggested that representatives of all three regional groups work together with the Scholarship Division in devising the questionnaire, and also to consider the possibility of obtaining professional assistance.

　

7. Fellows will be representing themselves at the forum, not the SYLFF institutions they are/were affiliated. Bengt Gustaffson raised this issue. It was agreed that fellows can only represent themselves as many of them are not currently affiliated with the nominating institutions.

　

8. Working language English, but with ample tolerance for differences.

　

9. Two representatives from the North/South America forum will be present at the Africa/Europe forum, together with one representative of SYLFF administrators. Representatives from the North/South American forum will be decided in Austin. Peter Scheid pointed out that the purpose of having representatives from other forums is an essential one.

　

10. One administrator from the Africa/Europe group will be selected as a representative at the Asia/Pacific forum. This representative will be selected at a later point from among the members of the group.

　

11. Steering Committees are advised to try to achieve gender balance in the selection of candidates whenever possible.

　

Peter Scheid raised the issue of regional division of the forums. He inquired whether the division into three regions is a final one that would remain throughout the Regional Forum Program. Keita Sugai responded that the grouping was made only for the three forums in 2003; later forums might be organized on a different basis.

　

Michael Jenkins suggested that participants be given flexibility in terms of length of participation.

　

Niels-Henrik Topp said that it would not be feasible to require fellows to actively participate in networking after the forum, especially not on behalf of the institutions, as they will be representing themselves at the forum. He suggested that this requirement be omitted. Tim Sullivan and Constantine Evangelides agreed adding that the fellows should be enabled to speak on their own without any restrictions, and that the networking requirement be left as an option.

　

Daniel Warner inquired about the value-added aspect of the forum from the point of view of SYLFF institutions and administrators who will be committing their time to organizing the forums. Peter Scheid responded that this depended on whether the forums and networking were designed to benefit fellows or the SYLFF; if former, then institutions should not be concerned about fellows not providing feedback; SYLFF institutions should not use fellows as instruments, but rather allow them to develop their leadership capability even if it means that institutions will not be informed about it.

　

The group developed a list of possible sub-topics for the forum and decided to ask participants to decide on the final topics. Fellows will be contacted by e-mail. The tentative list includes the following:

1. Multiculturalism

2. Asia-Pacific Values

3. Drugs/HIV

4. Poverty

5. Leadership Dimension in a Changing World

6. Leadership in Different Cultures

7. Leadership Crisis

8. Sustainable Development: Population, Environment, Resources

9. Globalization

　

Concern was voiced as to the feasibility of nominating one current and one graduated fellow. Some institutions hold exams during the October 19-23 period making it difficult for current fellows to attend; some institutions have incomplete contact data on graduated fellows making it difficult or even impossible to nominate graduated fellows. It was agreed that the Scholarship Division be consulted regarding the necessity of enforcing this guideline.

　

It was agreed that the forum should be fellow-oriented and that organization should be conducted accordingly.

　

A proposal was put forward that a speech be given by a prominent figure, such as the President of the Chiang Mai University, addressing one of the sub-themes.

　

Next, the group agreed to suggest to the Scholarship Division to exclude "enthusiasm, commitment, and leadership potential in network-building" from the nomination process requirements. The reason for this is that it is anticipated that many strong candidates for the forum might be too busy to commit themselves to network-building after the forum. This lead to another suggestion, i.e. for the Scholarship Division to come up with a strong and attractive reason to motivate fellows to establish networks. Representatives of the Scholarship Division said that the forum was not envisaged as a one-time-only kind of gathering, but rather as the first step towards new initiatives and building a stronger network for the future.

　

The group concluded that an e-mail list serve of all the participants would be a simple but promising outcome of the forum. It was noted that participants will be reminded that they are a part of the SYLFF family comprising 65 institutions with more than 8,500 fellows. Finally, it was agreed that participants will learn to work with others and share views on mutual concerns.

　

The following issues were raised and conclusions reached regarding the forum:

　

1. Allow time for informal networking and social contacts among fellows.

2. The forum should have a substantive academic component.

3. The issue of fellows in performing arts/music came up as they do not fit the profile of expected participants.

4. As many of the North American fellows' work focuses on Asia, the question arose how to motivate them to participate in the American regional forum.

5. It was suggested that leadership training be woven into the forum.

6. Issues of race, ethnicity, and religion ought to be addressed in a comparative way, including lessons to be learned from other regions.

7. Explore the possibility of making the forum shorter, so that it begins on Thursday and ends on Sunday (e.g. April 3-6, 2003).

8. Fellows should visit other SYLFF institutions when they are in the U.S.

9. Inquire if it would be possible for SYLFF Steering Committees to nominate two current fellows instead of one current and one graduated.

10. Inquire into the possibility of SYLFF institutions in the Americas recommending alumni to attend SYLFF forums in the parts of the world where they might be working; inquire about the same possibility for other regions.

11. Several SYLFF administrators from North America expressed their hope to attend the forum.