Introduction to this workspace:

Welcome to the At-Large Review Implementation Prioritization and Dependencies Workspace. 

During the process of the At-Large Review, the ALAC committed to eight review implementation activities (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 16) which the Board agreed to in their Resolution dated 23 June 2018.

There were an additional five issues  (5, 6,, 8, 10, 11) raised in the At-Large Review which the ALAC considers important but are continuously being addressed as part of At-Large's ongoing activities.

Three issues (12, 14 and 15) will be focused upon as applicable but there is no immediate ongoing activity.

The Organizational Effectiveness Committee has provided templates that are expected for each individual item, detailing the steps that At-Large will undertake to address each of these issues.

An Issues Team led by At-Large leaders will detail these steps as discussed by their work teams, and will bring these to the Implementation Working Group for comment and finalization. 

This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.

Key related workspace: ARIWG Plan Development

To access the Issue you would like to view, click Edit (above)

Issues #1 - #16:

Please note issues committed to by the ALAC and approved by the Board are highlighted in green.

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#1 

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16

  • No labels


  1. Using (AC) I made some comments in various issues. Just to make sure I share them as follows:

    #1 (Jonathan Zuck)

    Continuous Improvement(s)

    2. Provide a clear distinction …

      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)

    #5 (Tijani Ben Jemaa)

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

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

    #9 (John Laprise)

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

    #10 (Dev Anand Teelucksingh)

    Need to determine a strategy to publish a periodical summary of At-Large activities.

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

    #12 (Cheryl Langdon Orr)

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

    #13 (Glenn McKnight)

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

  2. Thanks Alfredo and that your comments are all with their respective issues now too (smile)

  3. I am troubled that we seem to be putting Review Implementation Effort into areas that we explicitly said we would not address at this time, other than through processes that are already well established, giving credence to the ITEMS recommendations that these area need urgent attention.

    Of particular note are:

    Issue 5: Outreach to I* organizations and GSE.

    Issue 6: Board Selection Process. Certainly this is something that we can re-open given time and energy, but why do it as part of the Review?

    Issue 10: Communications Channels. This is a routine effort of the Technology Taskforce. Why include it as part of this effort?

    Issue 11: ATLAS and GAs. Work is underway on ATLAS III and we will need to work to ensure that funding is available for future GAs. But the Issue was that we should abandon the pattern of GAs and ATLASes that we fought to get approved. Why is this an issue to be addressed here?

    Issue 12: Need to do more outreach. Our reply was that we are funding constrained and that as fuinding becomes available, we will use it. At this point, our funding has contracted. Unless there is a strong indication that we are not using it effectively, this should not be on the table here.

    Issue 14: Find alternative ways of funding At-Large operational expenses. Our reply was that there is no option to using ICANN operational funds and that Auctions or finding third parties to fund us was not on the table. What is this group going to do?

    Issue 8 on social media and Issue 15 on improving impact of outreach are also issues that we said are ongoing and do not require additional focus as part of the review implementation. Perhaps there could be some justification for review work for this, but I am not 100% convinced.

    We are going to have a lot of work to do to meet what we committed to. And we are going to be carefully watched and monitored. I think we need to be very careful about adding tasks to this list where we already have Board approval to not address as part of the review.

  4. Hi Alan..

    If you look at what people are doing, they are firstly working on the implementation steps and addressing the issues that were in the proposal doc.

    Personally I think that some of these are quite simplistic and are merely a bandaid to fix up just one part of the problem. And the teams have been asked to detail what few steps might be required to make the change/s that will address what was proposed.  The teams also know that any improvements for the proposal implementation issue that might require resources, have to be justified, but can only be directed at the original issue. We are aware that that is all the Board has approved.

    But I applaud those team leaders who are thinking beyond the proposal in the "continuous improvement" section and are starting to detail what we can do to enhance what we are already doing in that their particular area of our work. And to look more conscientiously at how we can do things better.

    Of course this is a lot of work, but at the moment, we are only DRAFTING ideas and our discussions on Friday morning will be used to flesh out these ideas to create something that can focus us as a team on making things easier for the ALAC in the long term, and so that we can be seen to be more effective in our work within ICANN. 

    Although we realise we will not be able to request funding to carry out any of the "continuous improvement "work that is currently being proposed, but it will highlight to the Board and ICANN Org that we are at least not sitting on our laurels here.  I certainly aim to be talking to anyone I meet in those first few days to tell them what we have been doing and why. And although it might not be possible to do in the short term, there are definitely ideas coming through that after we have completed this first round of implementation, and I am sure that we will do so, then we can make approaches to the bean counters that we have already got a list of priorities of our own of what is next on our list of continuous improvement for the ALAC and At-Large. Some may need funding but most, probably not. It just needs a bit more focus and looking at different ways of doing things 

    There is a lot of good work happening here, and I have appreciated the great comments that are coming from our community. Im not going to stop it. The drafts of the steps of their implementation plan is the priority, but if they have ideas that will help us "towards a more innovative and revitalised At-Large" then I am all for it. 

    1. To be clear, I applaud work on the "continuous improvement" issues. I just am cautioning that it not be packaged as part of the Review package.

      1. Understood, Separate issues.

  5. On the membership issue, I know individual membership is all the rage, but do we have different metrics for these different types of members. It would certainly be in our interest if we could put some numbers on our possible reach. I realize it doesn't always happen that org. reps consult their members – but they likely be like minded. That should count for something. 

  6. On Issue # 2: Seems reasonable to track newcomers that complete ICANN Learn courses as a means to acknowledge intention of complementing level of interest to get involved in ALAC activities (PDP, Comments, Outreach & Engagement (local, regional, etc.), volunteering for events, among others.

  7. In issue # 4 and the suggestion that follow:

    (NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below

    It could be material for an ICANN Learn course: Introduction to At-Large.

  8. In Issue # 2: It would be interesting to monitor individual members and the number of Introduction course and others taken in ICANN Learn.