The At-Large Structure (ALS) Survey has recently been prepared by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) officers.

This invitation is inviting you to respond to a survey divided into three sections:

   1) ALS Survey 2010
   2) ccNSO-ALS Survey
   3) Survey on ICANN’s Geographic Regions

Each section may be completed in a single or multiple sessions as best suits your time and availability. Each section should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

Purpose of the Survey:
The purpose of the first section, the 2010 ALS Survey, is to get to know your ALS better so we can better facilitate our support of your ALS in order to increase engagement and participation. This includes ensuring that that we have current contact information for all ALS representatives and their alternates, to discover what policy areas your ALS Membership is most interested in, and to learn how you prefer to communicate with members of the At-Large community and ICANN At-Large staff.

This section also aims to discover the types of At-Large engagement your ALS is interested in, including the preferred working group format, and whether your ALS Membership is interested in representing the At-Large community at local and regional meetings and contributing to the implementation of the At-Large Improvements project.

The purpose of the second section, the ccnSO-ALS Survey, prepared by Ron Sherwood, ccNSO liaison to the ALAC and Rudi Vansnick, ALAC liaison to the ccNSO, is to identify the relationship between ccTLDs and ALSes.

The purpose of the third section, the community survey from the Review of ICANN Geographic Regions cross-community work group, is designed to assess the benefits and disadvantages of ICANN's Geographic Regions framework.

Please complete all three sections by Monday, May 17th at 23:59 UTC.

We will send a USB stick containing useful information about ICANN and its policy process to those who complete this survey by the deadline. Please make sure you include correct postal address contact information.

1) Questions for the ALS Survey

The 2010 ALS Survey intends to make sure we have up to date contacts for all ALS representatives and their alternates, discover what policy areas your ALS and Membership are most interested in, find out how you prefer to communicate with us and each other; it also aims to optimize future communication within At-Large and to discover what working group formats would allow you to make the best use of your time.

1. Name and Contacts of ALS Representatives

a. Primary contact representative (this person is the voting delegate)
Address (including city and postal code):

b. Secondary contact representative
Address (including city and postal code):

c. Tertiary contact representative
Address: (including city and postal code):

2. Please provide the URL of your ALS below
(open question)

3. What is the level of representation of your ALS?

  • National
  • Regional
  • State
  • Local

4. Approximately how many individual and organizational members does your ALS represent?
(open question)

5. Communication tools(Please indicate all communications tools used by your ALS and include subscription details where applicable)

  • Mailing lists
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • RRS feeds
  • Twitter
  • Blogs
  • Other

6. Does your ALS hold regular meetings with its members?


If yes, how often does your ALS meet?

Once or twice a month
Every 2-3 months
Other (please explain)

If yes, please indicate below all which apply:

  • Face-to-Face
  • Teleconference
  • Web-conferences
  • Other

7. What are the working languages of your ALS?(more than one answer possible)


8. How would your ALS like to get involved in the Working Group activities?

ALSes and individuals from ALSes are welcome and invited to participate inAt-Large Working Groups(WGs) in order to assist the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) in making sure each ALS has the opportunity to participate and informing them of your areas of interest. Please indicate below:

a. Who is the primary contact in your ALS for receiving calls to join WGs?
(open question)

b. In general, what types of issues are your ALS members most interested in:

  • New gTLDS
  • Internationalized Domain Names
  • Security, Stability & Resiliency
  • Whois
  • IPv4/IPv6
  • Internet-Related Engagement and Outreach
  • Any other matters (please indicate)

9. What type of Working Group activity do you prefer?

  • Standing Working Groups focusing on larger Issue areas and meeting regularly
  • Ad Hoc Working Groups focusing on specific issue when they arise
  • Either depending on topic and required commitment

Other ways to contribute directly to ICANN Policy Development include responding to Public Comments on matters your ALS is interested in.
A useful mechanism to keep informed about the public statements the At-large community is working on is thePolicy Advice Development schedule
You can also review all currently open consultations on ICANN's Public Comment page:

Also, if you wish to have someone in your ALS notified about upcoming Public Comments who is responsible for distributing this information to your Members, please list their contact information below.

Address (including city and postal code):

10. Are there any Members of your ALS that would be able to represent us at local and/or regional functions? If yes, please provide their names, contact details, and relevant background information below.

Address (including city and postal code):
Relevant background information:

11. On a scale from 1 to 5, how well is At-Large integrated in the overall ICANN policy structure ?(5: At-Large is a very well integrated and vital part of ICANN, 1: At-Large is an isolated and self-serving constituency)


12. On a scale from 1 to 5, how well is your ALS integrated in the overall ALAC-RALO-ALS policy structure? (5: Your ALS is a very well-integrated and vital part of ICANN, 1: Your ALS is rather isolated and apart from ICANN, At-Large and ALAC activities.)


13. In your view, what are the most important limitations to ALS participation?(more than one answer possible)

  • There are no important limitations to ALS participation
  • Other time commitments
  • Connectivity problems such as low bandwidth
  • Policy documents are too technical and require too much time to read
  • Issues are not relevant to ALSs
  • There are not enough knowledgeable members in the ALSes
  • Other

14. The ALAC is currently engaged in an At-Large Improvements project. Its goals include increasing the ALSes’ participation in and awareness of both the ALAC’s and ICANN’s activities. The project is organized into the implementation of 13 recommendations, each of which has a page on the At-Large Improvements Workspace (scroll to the At-Large Improvements Recommendations section).

After visiting the Workspace, please indicate below:

a. Which recommendation(s) does your ALS consider the most important to increasing its own participation in ICANN?
(open question)

b. Which, if any, recommendation(s) would your ALS like to help the ALAC implement?
(open question)

Another way to participate in the At-Large Improvements project is to leave your comments at the bottom of the recommendation pages.

2) Questions from the ALS-ccTLD survey (prepared by Rudi Vasnick and Ron Sherwood)


The questions of the ALS-ccTLD survey have been prepared by Ron Sherwood, ccNSO liaison to the ALAC and Rudi Vansnick, ALAC liaison to the ccNSO. The survey will help to identify the relationship between ccTLDs and ALSes.In this survey, we would like to find out from ALSes the status of relationship(s) between ccTLDs and ALSes and learn which ALSes are at present being involved in local ccTLD activities. We would also like to discover opportunities for building future ccTLD and ALS relationships.

Proposed questions

1. Are you involved in your country's ccTLD business?

  • on a daily basis;
  • once in a while;
  • not at all

2.Are you, as an ALS, a member of the ccTLD in your country ?

  • a voting board member;
  • a non-voting board member;
  • general member;
  • not a member;

2.1 Reason for not being a member :

  • geographic distance
  • limited knowledge of ccTLD working process
  • ccTLD does not allow membership or external collaboration
  • another ALS is already a member
  • other (please explain)

3. Are you a partner of the ccTLD ?

  • Yes
  • No

3.1 If yes, what is the relationship between your ALS and the ccTLD ?

  • regular meetings
  • exceptional meetings
  • occasional events
  • others – please describe

4. How often do you meet with the ccTLD ?

  • monthly
  • quarterly
  • twice a year
  • once a year

5. Are members of the ccTLD board members of your ALS ?

  • Yes
  • No

6. Have you approached the ccTLD and suggested a collaborative arrangement?

  • Yes
  • No

7. Has the ccTLD approached your ALS and suggested a collaborative arrangement?

  • Yes
  • No

8. If the answer to either of the previous two questions is Yes: Has there been any request, or offer, of technical outreach or education (namespace or ICANN) for the community?

  • Yes
  • No

9. Is the ccTLD in your country a :

  • private company
  • NGO (Non Government Organization) – non profit organisation
  • public company (government involvement)
  • governed by government only
  • other – please describe

10. Does the ccTLD in your country work with NGO – civil society ?

  • Yes
  • No

11. What is the cost of registration for a ccTLD domain name ?

  • free of charge;
  • cost per year;
  • cost several years
  • cost for life time

*12. Would your ALS like to be more closely involved in the activities of the
ccTLD ?*

  • as a partner in activities or events
  • as a board member of the ccTLD
  • as the representative organisation for the citizens
  • other – please describe

13. Do you think the ccTLD is open to a closer collaboration with ALSes ?

  • Yes
  • No

Suggestions for the ALS survey :

  • Add "What speed access to the internet do you have? (e.g dialup, broadband)"
  • Either a followup question to question 7 or question 7 reworded to ask for the usernames/addresses of the communication tools they use. (e.g What your Twitter id? Skype id?, etc) That way, such avenues for communication could be used more effectively by At-Large.
  • looking at the sequence of questions, perhaps 5,6,4,7,8 should be asked first, followed by 1,2,9,3

Dev Anand Teelucksingh

contributed by on 2010-04-23 15:27:10 GMT

Dear ALAC members.
Below I copied a previous email sent to Matthias, and repeat now, Because I think would be good wondering about the possibilty to include the first letter sent by Engagement WG calling to participation, in the survey to be send next week, like a second call for participation. The participation is not easy to achieve, but we need to insist, and I consider proper to be send it, with the Rudi's survey to ALL ALS's Leaders. I propose that and I hope you support the iniciative. thank's ---------------------------
Dear Matthias: In relation with your intervention in the last LACRALO teleconference yesterday, I want to ask you if it possible to send, with the survey prepared by Rudi, next week, the letter to end users sent some time ago by engagement WG again, where we call for participation.
The idea is put in consideration of ALL ALS's leaders and try to get some compromise, and a response from they individually.
I consider would be good send again , like a second call for participation in Engagement WG.
Please tell me if it is possible and if you consider reasonable. thank's

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Participation and Engagement in ICANN WG

contributed by on 2010-04-23 15:58:23 GMT

Hello there,

I think it would be a great idea to ask the ALS'es which language they are comfortable working with, especially here in the Asian Pacific region, we have a huge range of different languages and maybe the reason they are not being so participative, is because they are not comfortable speaking in English.

Another addition could be which communication tool would be great to engage them more in the ALAC. Maybe we could give them some options and start to use those to communicate with them


contributed by on 2010-04-27 07:23:29 GMT

Comment received via email from Dessi Greve, EURALO Secretary:

I have some questions and suggestions about the the survey:

1. It is not clear to me what king of goal this survey have and what kind of
results aims to collect. Could you please elaborate a little bit more on the
general idea, in order to stream our thoughts to the right direction?

2. It would look clearer if you start and collect in a sequence all the
questions regarding the address, management, representation of the ALS (i.e. Q5,
Q6, Q4) and than the other questions, following the logic of the topic. Right
now the first part of the survey looks a bit chaotic.

3. Regarding question No 2 - I don't quite understand what is the role of the
informative section below. Furthermore, the provided links to the RALo
Dashboards with the exception of LACRALO, doesn't give any relevant information
on the regional issues, but rather show the ALSes for the region - a tool, which
we already have at the At-Large Website as a database list
( allowing
filtering according to the stage of the applications, and as Google maps

4. A question "How many people in the your ALS are actively working/engaged with
communication with At-Large" could be included, to show what are the human
resources of the ALSes for community work.

contributed by on 2010-04-27 07:27:03 GMT

Comment received via email from Adam Peake, ALAC member

About the ALAS questionnaire. Question 5 (main)
about regular meetings, include option for No
(rather than just if yes...) And ask "how often
do you meet?" (could give options, or just leave
for them to respond.)

cTLD section, question 2. Should there be an
option for them to respond as a general member
(not just board.) 2.1 add the option "other -
please explain"

And I approve the survey (FWIW.)

contributed by on 2010-04-29 09:53:11 GMT

  • No labels