Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation | At-Large should abandon existing internal Working Groups, too many of which are currently focused on process, and a distraction from the actual policy advice role of At-Large. Their creation should in future be avoided. If absolutely necessary, any such group should be strictly task/time limited and policy focused, or its role taken on by volunteer pen holders assisted by policy capable staff. |
Issue Identified | Excessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction. |
Does ALAC Support Recommendation? | Reject |
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning. | The ALAC strongly objects to this recommendation. Working Groups, under a variety of names, are the basic way that ICANN and its constituent parts discuss issues, address concerns, come to agreement and make decisions. The ALAC believes that they are core to its success, both in the formulation of its policy advice as well as in furthering its process development (as suggested by the Review Recommendations on outreach, collaboration tools and social media) |
.f ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation? If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation. | |
Prioritization | |
At-Large Comments | The At-Large community creates WGs for a number of reasons that together form the framework that allows and encourages participation by the At-Large community in the discussion and shaping of policy that can properly reflect the interests of end-users. Hence the existence of these WGs is not trivial and indeed it constitutes the grassroots of participation for end-users within the ICANN policy development process. It is through such WGs that new participants often become active contributors. The ALAC believes that they are core to its success, both in furthering its process development (as suggested by the Review Recommendations on outreach, collaboration tools and social media) as well as in the formulation of its policy advice. The uses of WGs include: Policy-Related Tasks: These WGs are used to build policy recommendations and advice, merging and melding differing opinions and ensuring that all parties can contribute. The final statements are supported by the ALAC and the RALOs. WGs were critical to the ALAC’s ability to very effectively contribute to the New gTLD Process, the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, and the new Accountability measures. These WGs are generally open to all participants in At-Large. Process-Related Tasks: These WGs, in general, carry out tasks on behalf of the ALAC; at times making decisions on behalf of the ALAC. Their tasks include providing: advice and decisions on ICANN special budget requests; advice and decisions on CROPP requests; deliberation and advice on outreach; as well as deliberation and development of capacity building programs. Outreach and Engagement: We have WGs which address needs such as: Tools (such as messaging and conference), Translation, Captioning; Social Media and Accessibility (ensuring that those with disabilities can participate equitably). Several of these have been sufficiently successful that they have been, or are in the process of being, transitioned to ICANN-wide projects (for example, ICANN Academy, Accessibility, Captioning). The At-Large Community, as does every SO/AC, has policy and process activities to address policy and process issues, to improve the effective functioning of their organisation. They constitute the base forum for end-users to voice their thoughts, discuss their concerns in relation to any given policy being discussed at ICANN, and frame agreements and strategies on how to positively impact the policy development process to benefit internet end-users. Open Working Groups are the backbone of At-Large in reaching consensus by providing bottom-up, grassroots input. There are also WGs internal to RALOs set up to respond to ALAC policy and process in particular regions. RALO WGs are the prime forum for individual members and ALSes to provide input. They highlight awareness of the diversity of regional approaches as well as taps into the skills and interests of individual and ALS members. In all cases, WGs can be dismantled as their tasks are completed. It should be noted here that the CCWG-Accountability subgroup on SO/AC Accountability is considering recommending that SO/ACs create an outreach WG to improve the performance of that function - one of the WGs that this recommendation is suggesting being abolished. |
Possible Dependencies | |
Who Will Implement? | |
Resource Requirements | |
Budget Effects impact? | |
Implementation Timeline | |
Proposed Implementation Steps |
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
8 Comments
Alan Greenberg
My thoughts
Status:Reject
Comment: Working Groups, under a variety of names, are the basic way that ICANN and its constituent parts discuss issues, address concerns, come to agreement and make decisions. The ALAC believes that they are core to its success, both in furthering its process development (as suggested by the Review Recommendations on outreach, collaboration tools and social media) as well as in the formulation of its policy advice.
Glenn McKnight
Status Reject
Comment
Many of our communities have expertise that they bring to the table beyond just the policy venue that improve ICANN's operations etc. It was the WG that worked on practical implementation strategies of the ATLAS ll recommendations which have benefited ICANN community as a whole. Its also a good way for people to start their involvement leading to more substantial participation
Aida Noblia
I do not support
Reasoning
Fundamentals. Working groups are essential to organizations. The contrary is to ignore the historical importance of teamwork, which is now so widely recognized in business literature (collective intelligence, brainstorming, etc.). It is inconceivable today to work alone. Groups are the means and the opportunity for end users of the Internet to work together as a team, to exchange ideas and opinions, to express their interests and to assert them, to actively participate in the elaboration of policies and to elaborate their declarations. In every organization two types of teams are required: those that are dedicated to the development of the policies of each organization and those that dedicate themselves to processes and procedures. Both are related and developed according to the practical needs that each organization has at each moment. Like everything else, it can be improved.
Suggested alternative Recommendation
At large could improve the functioning of the working groups to adapt to the new requirements after the transfer of functions operated and change of Bylaws.
Proposed Implementation Steps
To optimize the functioning of the groups it is necessary to: a) Update the list of active existing working groups and their existing active participants in At Large. B) Establish rules of operation for groups, especially groups of policy. C) Set participation metrics (attendance, participation, group effectiveness and members). D) monitoring compliance with rules and metrics, functioning, effectiveness, effective participants, attendance, work and permanence in groups, results, etc.). E) Call for participation in the working groups on policies, in order to expand the team of participants in these groups, giving priority to issues that are required at any time. (This task is already done for each topic) f) Stimulate and raise awareness of the need and the obligation to participate actively, to fulfill the role of representing the end users of the Internet.
Who Will Implement? Each Ralo will designate those responsible
Budget Effects impact?
I understand the budgetary burden would be minimal: some distance meeting will be required, maybe sometimes de meetings could be by Skype), some staff work in support of the collection of attendance control data at meetings.
Ariel Liang
ALAC comment in the ALAC Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report
==
The ALAC strongly objects to this recommendation. Working Groups (WGs), under a variety of names, are the core way that ICANN and its constituent parts discuss issues, address concerns, come to agreement and make decisions. The At-Large community creates WGs for a number of reasons that together form the framework that allows and encourages participation by the At-Large community in the discussion and shaping of policy that can properly reflect the interests of end-users. Hence the existence of these WGs is not trivial and indeed it constitutes the grassroots of participation for end-users within the ICANN policy development process. It is through such WGs that new participants often become active contributors.
The uses of WGs include:
Policy-Related Tasks: These WGs are used to build policy recommendations and advice, merging and melding differing opinions and ensuring that all parties can contribute. The final statements are supported by the ALAC and the RALOs. WGs were critical to the ALAC’s ability to very effectively contribute to the New gTLD Process, the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan, and the new Accountability measures. These WGs are generally open to all participants in At-Large.
Process-Related Tasks: These WGs, in general, carry out tasks on behalf of the ALAC; at times making decisions on behalf of the ALAC. Their tasks include providing: advice and decisions on ICANN special budget requests; advice and decisions on CROPP requests; deliberation and advice on outreach; as well as deliberation and development of capacity building programs.
Outreach and Engagement: We have WGs which address needs such as: Tools (such as messaging and conference), Translation, Captioning; Social Media and Accessibility (ensuring that those with disabilities can participate equitably). Several of these have been sufficiently successful that they have been, or are in the process of being, transitioned to ICANN-wide projects (for example, ICANN Academy, Accessibility, Captioning).
The At-Large Community, as for every Supporting Organisation / Advisory Committee (SO/AC), has policy and process activities to address policy and process issues, to improve the effective functioning of their organisation. They constitute the base forum for end-users to voice their thoughts, discuss their concerns in relation to any given policy being discussed at ICANN, and frame agreements and strategies on how to positively impact the policy development process to benefit internet end-users. Open Working Groups are the backbone of At-Large in reaching consensus by providing bottom-up, grassroots input.
There are also WGs internal to RALOs set up to respond to ALAC policy and process in particular regions. RALO WGs are the prime forum for individual members and ALSes to provide input. They highlight awareness of the diversity of regional approaches as well as taps into the skills and interests of individual and ALS members.
In all cases, WGs can be dismantled as their tasks are completed.
It should be noted here that the CCWG-Accountability subgroup on SO/AC Accountability is considering recommending that SO/ACs create an outreach WG to improve the performance of that function - one of the WGs that this recommendation is suggesting being abolished.
Holly Raiche
Once again, I like Aida, suggestions. I do think reviewing the membership/mandate of the groups is something positive that we should be doing, eliminating them ignores how we get things done.
Alfredo Calderon
Aida sets the pace for a logical procedure to adjust the workload of all WG's. Review members, update and request volunteers from NextGen and Fellowship programs would help rejuvenate and bring new ideas to all.
Aida Noblia
The timeline would be lacking, I understand that the theme of the working groups would be a permanent one, for therein the powers of the Empowered Community, the activities and the policy advice are nurtured. An evaluation could be established every 6 months. The problem at the moment is that we are waiting for what other groups, such as the group of operating principles of the Region in the case of LACRALO, are waiting, and I do not know if in the other Ralos as well. It is imperative to follow the work of the work groups to make the system work. I think is a priority.
Vanda Scartezini
reject the proposal is clear. register the time each WG had to conclude its task can be a good practice and a way to be accountable to our community.
Aida suggestion may be a way to add more volunteers to the group and should be tested, but will just reinforce the role of our working groups.
It is a fact that the number of Cross Community WG is growing and is demanding more and more time from At large members, but not to have the standard way inside ICANN to produce works, as WG inside ACs and SOs does not sound a good advice. find a way to reduce workload from volunteers is the main problem for whole ICANN, once found a solution ALAC will be part of this.
Prirority - some registers on time can be implemented as medium priority