In this version (ver 3) of the SWOT:

  • Contains the input from both WT C and the RALOs.
  • The input from both has been consolidated and reorganized.
  • WT C input:  A numbering/lettering system has been added to allow for the easy identification of the individual points.
  • RALO input:  The individual RALO contributing each point is indicated.

A. Strategic planning (related to Rec. 5)

A.S - STRENGTHS                                                                              

A.S.1 - Membership diversity brings talent
A.S.2 - Regional involvement and balance:
    1.  At-Large outreach is pillar of ICANN's strategic influence in Internet governance
    2.  Involvement of all five RALOs is an asset
    3.  Knowledge of local communities benefits outreach planning
    4.  Knowledge of local actors (e.g., stakeholders, government leaders,
policy makers, regulators) related to ICANN and Internet ecosystem
    5.  Knowledge of possible outreach efforts
    6.  First-hand involvement in Internet governance unrelated to ICANN and domain names
A.S.3 - At-Large strategy is bottom-up and reflects the consensus of many stakeholders
A.S.4 - Current structure and existing processes are in place to avoid capture and allow scalability 
A.S.5 - At-Large, as home of individual Internet users, does not take into account purely commercial or vested individual interests
A.S.6 - Number and diversity of stakeholders are growing
A.S.7 - Level of participation by stakeholders is increasing
A.S.8 - At-Large is core part of the original ICANN vision
A.S.9 - At-Large's multi-stakeholder, bottom-up governance transcends operational domain name issues
A.S.10 - At Large, as ICANN's conscience, brings unique considerations to strategic planning


NARALO & LACRALO (combined)

NARALO:  Volunteer involvement is highly professional and experienced, providing a wealth of knowledge and expertise.
      -  LACRALO:  Benefits of having a voting Board Director from At-Large community
      -  LACRALO:  We are a community.
      -  LACRALO:  We have processes to encourage maximum participation in contests or mechanisms for appointment.

A.W - WEAKNESSES                                                               

A.W.1 - Specific details of At-Large strategy are not well defined or easily understood
A.W.2 - Translations: 
    1.  Number is limited
    2.  Delays exist
A.W.3 - Lack of clear strategic targets for the whole At-Large community (ALSes, RALOs, and ALAC)

LACRALO:

Lack of sufficient and updated skills (technical knowledge, socil and political agenda of ICANN)
Increased risk of applying the capabilities of an ALS or an entire

There is, in theory, the possibly that a RALO can be "captured" by a single provider or provider group -- consistently supporting policies favoring a that provider or group. (Example issues on which a RALO might suffer capture:  New gTLDs, ccTLDs used like generics, and other changes in the DNS.)

Lack of mechanisms for transparency and accountability within and between ALSes.

Lack of minimum requirements for the incorporation of the At-Large ALSes (perhaps should require annual report, statutes approved by competent authorities, recent activities):
      -  Lack of policies regarding outreach;
      -  Lack of policies regarding "inreach"; and
      -  Must substantially improve procedures to include profiles, orientation, presence and participation, representation, better options for new leaders, less or no re-election, less or no multiple representation in the same or different agencies, etc.

The loss of At-Large resources in the training of volunteers removed from community or no longer participating


NARALO:

- Lack of presence of  fair representation from  low income  memberships  from the " digital divide"

- Unclear of the integration of the disabled communities, WCAG 2.0 compliance

- No separate committee on mobile internet issues ie. internet on smart phones, Ipads, Motorola Xoom etc

A.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                      

A.O.1 - Ability to feed local and global issues into ICANN strategy
A.O.2 - Very powerful communication channel
A.O.3 - Useful tool for ICANN outreach
A.O.4 - Local ALSes can help with local events (i.e., act as liaisons to local stakeholders)
A.O.5 - Developing countries and emerging economies provide many prospects 
A.O.6 - Opportunity exists to create a road-map, based on various scenarios, for At-Large's future
A.O.7 - A better understanding between At-Large and ICANN Strategy team could lead to increased use of At-Large as a strategic resource for ICANN
A.O.8 - Public participation could be strengthened by integrating the Public Participation Committee's strategy with At-Large 's processes, facilitated by Staff
A.O.9 - Consultation and coordination between RALOs should be strengthened

LACRALO:

The participation of the ALSes  in outreach events can be strengthened by sponsorship and the funding of ICANN. 

The increase in the remote participation of the At-Large meetings can increase the contribution and participation of the global communities.

The quality of RALO calls can be improved further by encouraging the participation of past Fellows, who gain community insights in the Fellowhip Program


NARALO:

Could take a leadership role in providing foundation grants and grant assistance (ICANN Is a 501C) to less fortunate ALSes and other groups.  Note the World Wide Web Foundation's efforts to promote entreprenuership in the Third World.  (This could be a way of encouraging the growth of a number of ALSes.)

A.T - THREATS                                                                            

A.T.1 - Lack of funding limits outreach
A.T.2 - Lack of volunteers reduces time spent on strategic issues
A.T.3 - Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
A.T.4 - Loss of ICANN credibility if At-Large does not grow
A.T.5 - If bottom-up process is broken or At-Large strategy is not considered:
         1. Loss of local support
         2. Loss of stakeholder input
A.T.6 - ICANN's control by government-led agencies
A.T.7 - Competition from another agency similar to ICANN
A.T.8 - International pressure limits ICANN's revenue

LACRALO:

- ICANN control by IT companies

 

 

 

 

B. Operational planning (related to Rec. 5)

B.S - STRENGTHS                                                                          

B.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
B.S.2 - Local organizational knowledge brings unbiased view of operations: 
    1. Lower costs of implementation 
    2. Local political insight
B.S.3 - Local community input: 
    1. Grassroots input 
    2. RALO involvement is an asset   
B.S.4 - On-the-ground, workable and well-defined actions 
B.S.5 - At-Large uses electronic tools to bring its members' different backgrounds and experiences to bear on planning process

LARCRALO:

Dissemination mechanisms of the RALOS and ALAC (e.g. brochures)
   -  OCL point:  This is flow in direction of ICANN -> ALAC -> RALOs -> ALSes (as opposed to ALSes -> RALOs -> ALAC -> ICANN, which are  treated in points B.S.1-5 above).

B.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

B.W.1 - At-Large reacts slowly
B.W.2 - At-Large maturity still not completely achieved
B.W.3 - Translations: 
    1.  Number is limited
    2.  Delays exist

LACRALO:

Not enough outreach materials are available for ALS use.
   -  OCL point:  This is flow in direction of ICANN -> ALAC -> RALO -> ALS.   
  
Too many and redundant representatives in various points along decision lines.

Conflicts of interest for participants having multiple stakes in the process.
  
ALSes and RALOs overly focused on organizational and procedural issues, including the access to funding for travel and meetings.

NARALO:

There is not enough travel funding for even one face-to-face meeting of members.  Result:  a second-class tier of volunteers.

B.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                      

B.O.1 - Strengthen maturity of At-Large by improving processes
B.O.2 - Use At-Large as a powerful communication channel
B.O.3 - At-Large operating plan could be a useful step in preparing an accurate budget
B.O.4 - At-Large's abilities and reach could be used to convey ICANN's message locally
B.O.5 - At-Large could incorporate public participation into ICANN's operational planning
B.O.6 - At-Large comments, as result of consensus-based process, should be considered by ICANN Board and staff 
B.O.7 - Plans (such as a Second At-Large Summit or RALO GAs) proposed by At-Large should be considered by ICANN 

 

B.T - THREATS                                                                            

B.T.1 - Lack of resources (including operational funding, staff headcount, translation services, Web services, conference-call services, other daily logistical needs, etc.) 
B.T.2 - Less operational effectiveness and visibility leading to a lack of volunteer interest
B.T.3 - Lack of volunteers would limit operational planning and capabilities

C. Budget (related to Rec. 6)

C.S - STRENGTHS                                                                            

C.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
C.S.2 - In-house knowledge of budgetary requirements within At-Large
C.S.3 - Improved consultation among the RALOs and their representatives on ALAC
C.S.4 - Cost-effective actions
C.S.5 - Experience sharing among RALOs  
C.S.6 - A bottom-up budget structure for At-Large                                                                     

C.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

C.W.1 - Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
C.W.2 - Communication problems ICANN finance
C.W.3 - No possibility of ROI figure - "investing in At Large is like investing in R&D"
C.W.4 - ICANN currently only source of funds for At Large
C.W.5 - Lack of clear funding schedule/calendar with regards to face to face general assemblies introduces uncertainty
C.W.6 - We need to improve our interaction with the staff during the budget planning process.

C.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                         
 
C.O.1 - ALAC/At-Large could provide information regarding At-Large budgetary needs in a more timely manner and in the required format

LACRALO:

Possible use of Fellowship Program to fund ICANN meeting attendance for ALS members who have not previously had this opportunity

Possibility of raising ALS funding for local outreach and inreach from governments

Possibility of raising At-Large funding from IT corporates (most likely those with social responsibility programs), such as registrars and ccTLDs

Possibility of getting ICANN to comply with MOU signed with LARCALO regarding frequency of General Assembly meetings.

C.T - THREATS                                                                            

C.T.1 - Limiting ALAC's budget could:
    1.  Directly and severely affect outreach capability
    2.  Allow for fewer or no face-to-face meetings (including but not limited to GAs, ICANN meetings, Summits, RALO meetings, other "inreach" efforts, etc.) 
         a.  Possible consequences could include ALSes' abandoning At-Large, reducing At-Large's usefulness and legitimacy