ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies Workspace

Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear.

(MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups.

 (AC) re 4. c. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn to make make recommendations to the community on prioritization (NOT SURE I Understand the idea) Thanks for the question Alfredo! What I'm proposing is that instead of every call for public comment simply announced to the community by staff, prompting individuals to take up things of personal interest, we bring each public comment before the CPWG and discuss it's relevance to end users and, only if deemed relevant to our particular perspective, do we make a call for drafters. Make sense?

(AC) Agree.

1. Nov 2018 convene analysis and review of issue and status of improvements to date micro-team with staff allocated, penholders for this issue <insert link to wiki page> and ARIWG member volunteers as desired.
2. Identify the specifics of processes and practices used to date.
3. Identification of opportunities for process improvement or modification
4. Development of proposal for reenvisioning any processes and practices to be discussed by ALAC / At-Large and those utilising ALAC advice.
5. Documentation process renewal proposal as agreed and prioritised developed into a project plan. Noting which milestones are intended to be reached by Dec 2019, and what is to be undertaken under review and continuous improvement planning.
6. (HM) logging why we decide to comment or not comment on a certain topic and its relevance to end users
   
   
   

(NA for Nadira) suggesting 6. Staff to provide a summary documenting all contributors (at-large individuals and/or  ALAC members), once the comment  period of certain policy is closed. (reasoning, it might work as incentives for individuals)

1. Continue and expand the development of webinars to educate the at-large community on the policy considerations of the ICANN community
2. Draw a bright line distinction between individual and at-large policy advice
3. Ensure that at-large representatives to WGs and PDPs are aware of and clear on those distinctions when speaking for the at-large
4. Reimagine the process of advice prioritization by
   
   1. Focusing on the perspective of the typical end user (as defined by activities not specific groups of end users)
   2. Being disciplined NOT to develop advice when there is no unique "end user" perspective to bring to the discussion (like an amicus brief)
   3. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn make recommendations to the community on prioritization
   4. Seek feedback from regional leaders on prioritization advice
5. Reimagine the process of advice/policy development by
   1. Using the CWPG to formulate an initial perspective on a particular ICANN policy area
   2. Use the regional leaders to socialize and receive feedback on that perspective
   3. only THEN identify a pen holder to draft advice from THAT perspective
   4. finally, submit that draft for open comment by the at-large community
6. Reimagine the participation of non-English speakers in at-large policy/advice development by
   1. Continue to develop "issue briefs" in multiple languages to assist in education of non-English speakers
   2. Employ simultaneous translation on CPWG calls
   3. Continue and expand staff use as proofreaders for non-English fluent drafters before drafts are made public
   4. Employee translators for drafts drafted in a language other than English

1. Number of advice drafts that result from this process (as opposed to the current process of random volunteers)
2. Number of attempts to get feedback of the larger community
3. Quantity of respondents to attempts to seek feedback
4. Number of at-large community participants in policy/advice development
5. Number of non-fluent English speakers engaged in policy/advice development
   
   

At-Large is increasingly focusing on individuals (both unaffiliated At-Large Members as well as members within
each ALS) instead of just ALS voting representatives. Four of the five (RALOs) allow individual members and the fifth, LACRALO, has already approved the concept and is developing the detailed rules. We will also use the ALSes to communicate with those within an ALS who may have an interest in ICANN.

RALOs have also started to identify experts on ICANN topics within their ALSes and among individual members and to increasingly engage them in ALAC’s policy work. Thus, a bi-directional flow of ICANN information continues to be strengthened.

These activities will require the production of information that is truly understandable (as identified in a recent ALAC-GAC Joint Statement) and available in multiple languages. As some of this will need to be created by At-Large staff, additional resources may be needed. We would suggest that At-Large Staff continue to work together with At-Large Leadership in looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders to facilitate the development of their skills and encourage them to stay and deepen their knowledge and expertise. Regarding the perception of unchanging leadership, statistics reporting involvement will be published

(MH) Do we need to review our application forms for ALSes and Individual members to ensure that we have active participants in our At-Large activities? Otherwise we are planning to put an inordinate amount of work in to reach whom we assume are potential participants who aren't actually there. In APRALO we have 20 names of which only about 3 or 4 are active. I never see others at our meetings etc, so why do they join? are they participating in ICANN Learn?

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered. 1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications? 2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not? 3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done? 4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

(JH) We also need to clearly indicate that in an ALS we can have many active people from one ALS. Previously there was hesitancy to give out confluence accounts to more than the main and alternate rep.

(NA for Nadira) I could see two fold of the “Outreach an Engagement”, Outreach is one and Engagement is two.  Handling the Outreach, RALOs with its community of active ALSes to take part of the outreach within their ALSes members and to their wider community. 

(NA) Awareness programs of at-large and ALAC work comes before any community members to start in policy engagements.

(NA) Create a system of shadow mentor to those who wanted to get directly into policy work.  

(MM for M. Moll) I agree with Nadira. Outreach and engagement are very different things. And I would also say that sometimes it takes a long time till outreach becomes engagement when speaking of individuals. People go through different life stages and it is only at some points that people can actually fit something like engagement in ICANN into their lives. So, being too restrictive on criteria could actually cut out some potential contributors.

(Satish) Here are a few comments to start off discussions (moved here from the original location):

a. Take proactive measures to facilitate and encourage participation from ALSes as well as individual members

• Evolve a system to better integrate/engage the four categories of people who are currently part of community mailing lists: (a) ALS leaders; (b) ALS Members; (c) Individual members; and (d) Observers. We may be able to provide different services customized for each of these categories. For instance, ALS Leaders may be active during participation, but get disconnected after they move out of their positions, and we may want their continued participation. Similarly, observers may need help to promote them to individual members.
• Remove deadwood from RALO mailing lists through an appropriate process such as an explicit "opt-in". Similarly, dormant ALSes can be decertified after a due process.
• Use social media tools creatively to engage members
• Provide capacity-building measures during ATLAS/GAs, and also by co-ordinating with national/regional Schools of Internet Governance (SIGs)

b. Remove elements that cause "friction" in participation

• Overcoming language barriers that may cause gaps in understanding
• Providing editorial services for potential pen-holders
• Ensuring that seemingly-formidable barriers such as time-zone for calls are softened by practices such as call rotation

c. Revitalize the At-Large Community

• Volunteer fatigue could be a factor that limits participation. Consider ways to overcome inertia, fatigue and indifference, perhaps by rallying the community around a common issue
• Project the renewed vision of "At-Large 2.0" that would help to mobilize and revitalize the community

(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box.

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered.

1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications?

2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not?

3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done?

4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

MH: Collect data on end users.

CLO: Peer-to-peer support / mentorship activity.

AG: post link from prior report highlighting prior focus on these steps.

(HM)The changes made to improve the barriers to individual participation

(HM)RALOs contributions to the statements and opinions posted by the ALAC

1. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
2. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
3. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
5. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
6. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
7. (JC) Performance review

8. (NA) A targeted policy development training program to at-large staff goes hand-in hand with at-large community development or capacity building program. Reasoning the peer learning and discussions enhances the learning.  

9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure.

10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members

11. (JH) Staff should take notes and summarize the discussion connected with each agenda item in a meeting

(JC) ICANN Org for HR aspects, ALAC for actual implementation, with supervision also provided under CPWG leadership (or any other WG dealing with ALAC policy)

(HM) with supervision provided by the implementation working group of the ALAC

1. (HM) ALAC internal review about the role of the staff in policy making in the past
2. (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
3. (HM) Consider having one of the staff dedicated to policy issues
4. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars
5. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
6. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
7. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
8. JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
9. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
10. (JC) Performance review

HR/HU: Suggests request of 1 FTE to focus on ALS/Individuals and engagement.

1. (JC) Performance review

This leadership model has been developed by the incoming Chair to offer a visual representation of the new At-Large Leadership Team (ALT), as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. The ALT now includes Regional Leaders, to encourage more interaction between the ALAC and the leaders of our regional member organisations. The objective is also to ensure that decisions and other important messages from the ICANN Board (through our At-Large Board representative) and from other constituencies of ICANN (through the ALAC Liaisons) are relayed more directly to Regional Leaders and will more easily filter to the At-Large Community through RALO meetings and outreach and engagement opportunities. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position.

(NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf

(NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.

Introduction of the organigram to all the members to get buy in to the organisational model and the purposes behind making the information more transparent. This is proposed to take place during the Development Session of the ALAC , Regional Leaders and Liaisons which will be held at the conclusion of ICANN63 in Barcelona. This session will also give implementation issue teams a chance to discuss their plans for the items they have been assigned, with each other and to get feedback Other organisational teams (CPWG and O&E leads will be able to share some goals and objectives for their working teams during 2019, especially as we lead up to ATLASIII.

Many of the issues raised have already been addressed in some way by the Incoming Chair. The following steps have been covered:

1. An Organigram has been developed to show a new At-Large Leadership model that is more inclusive and collaborative, as well as being more transparent and accountable. 

2. The Organigram demonstrates how leadership roles are dispersed among ALAC and Regional Leaders, as well as to key leads who take responsibility for the core tasks of At-Large - namely, Development of Policy Advice; Outreach and Engagement; and Organisational Matters 

3. Regional Leaders  have been incorporated into what is now the At-Large Leadership Team to enable them to share in ALAC discussions about key issues, and then to share any key messages with their regional members.

4. At-Large Leadership team meetings will be open to the ALAC and the public unless there are specific, usually personnel, issues to be discussed (as per any ALAC meeting). These matters will be discussed in camera.

5. A specific page on the At-Large Website will display the organigram which will be regularly updated with regards to current Working Groups and appointees to various roles that are allocated by the vote of the ALAC.

6. Roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership within At-Large will be more clearly defined on a page set aside for this purpose on the website, and available to all.

7. Staff will be assigned to the steps #5 and #6 as per Implementation Task #1 which is related to At-Large Wikis and the Website, and the work of At-Large.. 

(HM)8. ALT is to start making delegations to ALAC members

Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place

To the extent allowed by ICANN’s mission and available funding, members of At-Large and the At-Large organizations will continue to, and potentially increase, our involvement with other I* organizations as a method for increasing the visibility of At-Large, exploring areas for mutual collaboration and for attracting additional At-Large volunteers.

At-Large will continue to work closely with GSE Staff to contribute to regional outreach plans and to encourage participation in a cross-community, cross-organizational fashion.

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #12, #13,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach?

(AC) Agree with Maureen’s comment on metrics. A detailed rubric should be in place.

(AC) What is the objective of the Capacity Building Program?

What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

(NA) Coordination with I* organizations and also with ICANN cross community to conduct outreach and engagement activities, to put a clear objectives and a measurable deliverables to be set in advance.

(NA) There is also a need to do outreach and engagement within ICANN SOs/ACs, because not all of their members understand At-Large work.

(JH) ICANN GSE staff should collaborate with local RALOS and ALSes in the region and apprise them of events with Think Tanks, Univeristies, conferences, private sector programs so that local ALSes can participate and conduct outreach and engagement with these groups. Often we find out abou these events after the fact and they are perfect outreach and engagement opportunities that are lost.

• Additional travel support over what is currently available
• More promotional material of better quality
  

• Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions)
• Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year
• Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups
  

(NA) Although At-Large LT election process have evolved and enhanced, but there is still need to move beyond the pre-arranged nomination process of the same leadership team changing roles,  because it hinders the introduction of new emerging leaders to come forwards under the perception that everything is set in advance.   

(NA) A limit on the number of continuous rounds leaders can hold role in the LT. Then call for a certain number of years gap before returning to a new or same role. This will give a chance for new leaders to emerge.  

(MM) We need to control the revolving door perception while attempting to keep experienced members on board. It is a careful balancing act. Term limits can help. Perhaps some advisor positions or emeritus like they have in universities

(MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice

(NA) Would be handy to have a one stop shop document  as a wiki page that serve as tool to document all the working groups and their members and process used. This page, will be also good for branching out to the working space or the different resources. 

1. That the ALAC has developed goals and objectives for 2019
2. That there is a staff member designated to regularly update Working group wikis and the Working Group Website page
3. That the CPWG wiki page regularly updates issues discussed and progress statements

The expected amount of carpentry by staff is very low, just maintain the groups up to date, We should expect less than 10% of one person per month, or 0,1 FTE, if any.

1. Clarify ALAC focus areas and objectives for 2019
2. Establish or re-establish working groups that will deal with specific time-framed issues as required (under the management of key stream leaders of Organisation, Policy and O&E streams.
3. Ensure that staff establish appropriate and updated wiki pages to record WG objectives as well as details or meetings and outcomes of each WG meeting
4. Ensure that staff record the Working Groups that are currently active on the At-Large website with links to each WG wiki page
5. Establish a wiki page for the Consolidated Policy Group, to record topics covered at each meeting and a progress statement on each (including the EPDP WG)
6. Establish a wiki page for the O&E WG and the outcomes of their monthly meetings (including ATLASIII WGs)

7. Establish a wiki page for the Organisational WGs, and any relevant updates (including ARIWG).

8. An annual review of the groups and participants should be taken. A half session at the AGM should be dedicated to evaluate the current groups, and its participants. Also, 30 days prior to this date an email should be sent to all At-Large to join this working groups. At this time any “no longer needed” group should be stopped, and just kept the records.

9. Change the RoP 14.3.2 to include clear rules of termination of the working groups

10. A person from staff should be clearly indicated as the one in charge to maintain the groups up to date in the wiki site

(MH) This item highlights how we can use social media to enhance the work that is being done in O&E, so that some collaboration with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate

Also to the communication channels item #10, looking at effective ways to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community

(NA) Social media in ICANN basically used to disseminate updates and it is one direction, however,  having it as a channel for engagement with followers need a dedicated skilled staff/volunteers, the engagement what attracts the right followers.  Again, it is not about the tool, but the type of added value posts that sustain interest in the channel.

(MM) In reality, most end-users never get near an ICANN process and when they do, the language is so foreign, they might not come back. Some communications experts who can speak about ICANN issues without getting into ICANN language would be really useful.    

(MH) This task is related to Activity Item #8 about using social media to assist At-Large with its outreach attempts to attract more participants into our policy development areas and how we can do this more effectively

(AC) Also linked to Capacity Building Program as a transversal objective to build O&E, besides disseminating information.

(AC) It seems that ICANN produces Regional Newsletters, in addition to those prepared by Regions. Could this effort be coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts? See - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-newsletter

(NA) From following ICANN communication specialists one can notice that they are unfortunately not social media specialists.  There is a need to well-designed capacity building program for staff only on social media engagements.   

(MM) I reiterate my point about the need for communications experts who don't speak ICANNese and who can package the message in a way that the enduser can relate to it.  

The ALAC Technology Taskforce regularly reviews various communications tools with the aim of improving At-Large participation. The At-Large Community is very diverse and the selection of any new tools must accommodate this diversity. We will also need to continue to investigate how we can overcome the lack of affordable communications for many of our participants and future participants. Additionally language issues on email and other communication tools hamper clear communications.

(MH) This item also highlights how we can use what communication channels are available to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community.

Some collaboration with the social media items (#8 & #9) but also with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate, to enhance the work that is being done in O&E. (JH) Also more collaboration with ICANN IT staff will help ease some of ther frustration with technology and its failures.

As well as some metrics to assess the effectiveness of any communication channels that we implement. For example is there any way we can check how often Capacity building webinars are being accessed after their real-time presentation? Also if transcripts or recordings are being accessed by participants who cannot attend the meetings in real-time. Are their current formats relevant to what our target audiences need in order to be informed?

(Satish) Some RALOs bring out their periodic newsletters, which are useful in providing information (including policy updates and progress of initiatives) to their community. I'd like to suggest an At-Large-wide newsletter that can periodically update the At-Large community as a whole, besides also informing other AC/SOs on the activities of ALAC.

(AC) A trimester newsletter (depending on resources) could be used as an O&E tool, as well as inform the At-Large community.

(NA) At-Large various communications tools are evolving and improving, but it is not about the different tools as much as how to activate a bottom-up community driven updates.  Giving the voice of the at-large community and interacting with them that what makes the platforms/tool a success.  (JH) We also need more ability to provide feedback to ICANN IT on the tools that are currently used.

The ALAC will proceed with its plans as approved by the Board, pending appropriate funding. As with all At-Large activities, there will be an increased focus on tracking and metrics.

(MH) ATLASIII, ICANN66 Montreal, Canada in November 2019 will be dependent on the outcomes of this implementation plan. The Metrics Issue #16 also relates to this task.

(NA) For the approved Global ATLAS, make sure to have a tangible measurable objectives, that help recruit well engaged community members to potential newcomers who have the time to volunteer to at-large policy work.  To provide justifications to ATLAS meetings, is to have those attended the meeting did actually engaged.  Adding to avoid having ATLAS to be a replica of a talk show conference.

(JH) Make sure all attendees are actively working on one of the working groups or assigned to one of the programs tor sessions that are held

(JH) assign a community member to take notes for their session and this way we could have all programs covered and make it easier for social media and other tools to promote this event.

(MM) I spoke to one former ATLAS participant who worked really hard on a particular session and when the advice that came out of that session was "rejected", that person went away, figured there were better things to do. So, the lesson there is to make sure participants feel their time has been well spent and that they contributed to something worthwhile.

As noted in Issue 5, the ALAC supports such external activity to the extent that funding is available and it coincides with ICANN’s mission. Increases in such funding would be appreciated, but in light of the FY19 draft budget, we are now in a mode of trying to minimize impact of the proposed cuts to such activities.

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #13,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

(AC) At-Large on the Road approach...

(NA) Rethinking of the outreach programs and in how to conduct them in order to increase its effectiveness.

(NA) Trying different approach to reduce the cost and at the same time engage at-large community members. Preparing a toolkit to ALSes in how to conduct an outreach and readymade templates. Allocate travel support to outstanding members of the ALSes to conduct the outreach regional or national events activities on behalf of the ALAC/RALOs LT, such approach will be a bottom-up and produce more engagements.

(MM) Outreach in a specific locality has to be done on a regular basis. One-offs don't work. My ideal program would be one that does 2-3 per year reaching some of the same people and a few new ones. So the content has to remain fresh and current.

At-Large Staff working with relevant departments to develop a single location which will point to travel funding opportunities and documentation of what resources were ultimately distributed, to the extent supported by those ICANN entities providing funding and reports.

2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group)

CROP and Non Discretionary funds to leverage on regional event participation

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

(NA) Per my point for issue #12, the more ALSes are engaged in the outreach activities on the local level the more closer At-large gets to its objectives.

(NA) The format and the agenda items of RALOs monthly meeting has to tailored to discuss with the ALSes attendees the latest issues and what they have to say about it and put minimal time to convey important updates that is relevant to them.

• The priorities of the CROP funding initiative has direct impact on the number and types of events we are underwritten to participate. Need assurances on the quantity of sponsored trips to properly plan the year events
• Approval of RALO strategic plans and the subsequent waiting period for staff approval directly impacts some trips that could occur shortly after approval
• Clear and open communication on the GSE activities so that RALO's can participate

(AC) Documentation to distribute must be available in diverse formats for audience. (hard-copy, digital, QR codes, etc.)

• Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
• An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
• Consistent ICANN funding for CROP
• Flexibility and nimble response from staff on approvals
• Up to date Wiki page of funders, requirements and deadlines
• Up to date marketing materials
• Promotion on Social Media of ATLARGE participation
• Ownership of Grant software Grant Station
  
  

1. A full disclosure of all the ICANN  Global and ICANN regional events formatted in  an easy to access monthly calendar 
2. Use of RALO templates for completion of regional plans and mentoring to accelerate the completion and endorsement of regional outreach plans
3. Document and share any valuable lessons learnt from Outreach  and Engagement efforts
4. Access to a pool of multilingual e-flyers and print materials for events
5. Comprehensive list of non ICANN funding opportunities to share with the ATLARGE community
6. Followup strategy of all leads

It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds.

(NA) Study and evaluate at-large earlier budgets to analyze how to conduct the same activities more efficiently with less cost.

As noted previously, subject to available funding, we do look for opportunities to explain At-Large and attract new participants at non-ICANN events. When opportunities have arisen where funds are available to bring a targeted group to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #13 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

(MH - in bylaws: The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.

(NA) with reference to “When opportunities have arisen where funds are available to bring a targeted group to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.” was there a measurement of the success rates of these program? How many of those benefited from these programs continued to be engaged in ICANN SO/ACs?

(NA) A rubric is needed to make sure those invited would be worth the investment.

(JH) More collaboration with Local GSE who attend many events and could provide ALSes with additional opportunities to outreach and engage at a local level with minimal travel needed.

1. Clarify annual budget support for outreach and engagement activities for ALAC to coordinate outreach to individual internet users
2. Clarify ICANN's monitoring and evaluation procedures relating to O&E activities, as they may pertain to potential for future funding
3. Present an annual schedule of At-Large O&E activities (with metrics) for the ALAC annual report (including funding source for each activity).

The ALAC has had a Metrics WG and an ALS Review Taskforce, both of which largely went into stasis during the IANA Transition and Accountability efforts. It is proposed to revive this activity as part of the At-Large Review Implementation.

The ALAC notes that regional differences make it more difficult to have uniformity over participation metrics, but agrees that is an important target. The ALAC notes that collecting such statistics is a staff-intensive operation.

Metrics will be developed for each activity in which At-Large participants are involved in order to measure the effectiveness of our processes as well as the actual involvement of active participants who assist the ALAC to carry out its work within ICANN. Such evidence will not only provide transparency and accountability of the contribution made by At-Large with regards to their meaningful contribution in support of the policy development work carried out by ICANN's supporting organisations, but also of the degree of effort and engagement of the many volunteers whose meaningful contribution to the work of At-Large adds value to the development of policy that is an essential part of the the work of ICANN. Metrics could also legitimize requests made by At-Large for increased funding support for regional activities where there is still a need for further outreach to educate those in underserved sub-regions about ICANN. One specific goal for the metrics team during 2018-2019, will be the identification of 60 participants who demonstrate meaningful participation and engagement in both ICANN and their regions, to attend the ATLASIII in Montreal in November 2019.

(NA) the above comments is well written and has to be carried forward to all RALOs and their ALSes.

(MM) I organized an outreach event last February and submitted a report to ICANN staff which contained metrics. I am sure other people do this too. So, that what happens to that stuff at the moment?

The Technology Task Force would be helpful in developing appropriate tools to record assessments of different activities based on the type of metrics being collected for some measurement purpose.

The Stakeholder Analysis Tool will be able to make use of any regional or country based metrics we develop first through At-Large and then further throughout ICANN

(JC) Selection of methodology for scoring identified performance metrics.

• (JC) Tool(s) for collecting each identified performance metric
• (JC) Staff to assist in monitoring and collection of data relevant to each identified performance metric
• (JC) Methodology for scoring each identified/collected performance metric
• (JC) Procedure for dealing with changes in data collection, solution

1. The Metrics WG will resume to discuss and decide on performance metrics to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019; as well as how the data will be collected, scored, monitored and evaluated

2. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide appropriate metrics that will assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal

3. Each of the three streams of At-Large activity (Organisational, Policy and O&E) will establish a goal with measurable objectives which can evaluated at the end of the year to assess achievement of the work stream objectives during the year.

(JC) Review of solution post implementation to establish the effectiveness and fairness in achievement of the objective, as well as majority support of the At-Large community for the same.

(MH) some metrics which have been suggested but still yet to be discussed

• recorded attendance of regional as well as general At-Large meetings and involvements,
• evidence of active participation in and meaningful contribution to these meetings
• evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved policy recommendations
• evidence of active participation and meaningful contribution to policy or other statements that At-Large is requested to participate in
• evidence of active engagement in the distribution of information about ICANN and its activities at local. national or regional level
• evidence of mentorship support given to colleagues, or the development of resources, to build further knowledge and understanding of the work of ICANN within the regions

(JC) I would suggest bulleted items under point 3 be identified performance metrics while we consider that methodology or combination of performance metrics should be used for assessment. Some At-Large folks are not in the position to meet all metrics so a fair methodology is needed for scoring.

(MM) I don't know about "evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved recommendations.. I would rather say evidence of explanation of such recommendations.

1. (JC) Level of support by the At-Large community