Haz clic aqui para ver la página en español. Sin embargo, le rogamos que comenta sobre la tabla SWOT aquí abajo en inglés.

For the Spanish version of this page, please click here.  But please contribute to the SWOT tables below in English only.


At-Large Improvements WT C (on ALAC/At-Large's planning processes) is responsible for implementing Recommendations 5 and 6 to come out of the Final Report of the ALAC Review WG on ALAC Improvements:

  • Rec 5:  ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process.
  • Rec 6:  At-Large should develop accurate cost models.

To complete this mandate, WT C is compiling three SWOT analyses (SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) on ALAC/At-Large's:

  • Strategic planning;
  • Operational planning; and
  • Budgetary planning.

As the next step, WT C would like to collect contributions to each of these three SWOT analyses from the RALOs' ALSes.

Instructions for LACRALO

WT C is asking each RALO to collect contributions from its ALSes to the three SWOT analyses below, which cover the ALAC/At-Large's (a) strategic, (b) operational, and (c) budgetary planning.  This request is a chance for your ALSes to directly influence ALAC/At-Large planning processes and procedures.  (Note:  This request is separate from the ALAC's recent request for the RALOs' comments specifically on ICANN's FY2010-14 Strategic Plan.) 

At present, each of the three SWOT tables lists the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats determined by WT C.  We are now asking the ALSes to add to each of these lists.  In considering its input, each ALS (along with its RALO) may review the points being added by the ALSes of the other RALOs; links to the SWOT contribution page of each RALO can be found on the main WT C workspace page.

To proceed, we would like each RALO's leadership (or appointee) to "hold the pen" -- that is, to collect its ALSes' input (in whatever way it sees fit), consolidate that input if it wishes, and to enter it into the below three SWOT tables.  Therefore, we have given LACRALO's chairperson, vice chair, and secretariat editing rights to this page.  (Please let us know if you would like us to grant editing rights to any other RALO member.)

When adding the points below that your ALSes would like to contribute, please:

  • Place new points underneath those already in the SWOT tables;
  • Add the points in English;
  • Use a color other than black;
  • Do not number/letter the points you add (even though the points already listed are numbered/lettered); and
  • Feel free to use the designations "+1," "+2," etc. after any point already in a SWOT table with which your ALSes strongly agree.

Deadline:  Please add your ALSes' contributions as soon as possible but no later than three business days after February's LACRALO meeting -- that is, Tuesday, 22 February.

Thank you very much.  If you have any questions, please contact Seth Greene, the At-Large Improvements Manager, at seth.greene@icann.org.


A.  SWOT on ALAC/At-Large strategic planning

This SWOT analysis relates to Rec. 5:  ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process. 

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
Benefit of having a voter from Director At-Large community
We are a community
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)

Lack of empowerment to the RALOS "officers" in events related to ICANN
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 RALO in support of a pattern or policy favoring a single provider or provider group. (For example with new gTLDs, ccTLDs used like generics, and other changes in the domain names).
Lack of mechanisms for transparency and accountability within and between ALSes.
Lack of minimum requirements for the incorporation of the At-Large ALSes (Annual Report, statutes approved by competent authorities, recent activities).
Lack of policies of Out-Rich.
Lack of policies of In-Rich.
Must be substantially improved 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.
LWG:Loss of efforts and resources of At-Large in the training of volunteers to be removed (no longer participate) in the community without the benefit of it.

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

The participation of the ALSes  in Out-Rich events can be strengthened by the sponsor 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.
Encourage the participation of 1 ex - fellowship in RALOS teleconferences to yield insights into the community with the experience learned during the program.

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

ICANN control by IT companies. OCL: yes 
LWG:OK agree
Loss of efforts and resources of At-Large in the training of volunteers to be removed (no longer participate) in the community without the benefit of it.  OCL: yes, but I would see this more a weakness than a threat





B.  SWOT on ALAC/At-Large operational planning

This SWOT analysis relates to Rec. 5:  ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process.

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

Dissemination mechanisms of the RALOS and ALAC (brochures). OCL: this is interesting: B.S.1-5 flow ALS -> RALO -> ALAC -> ICANN. This goes ICANN -> ALAC -> RALO -> ALS. Is this okay here?  LWG: SI es correcto, abria que buscar mecanismos para su realización y que se visualice la retroalimentacion planteda en ambos sentidos.

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

Unavailability of outreach materials for ALSes to commit to the work of OUT-RICH. OCL: again, this goes ICANN -> ALAC -> RALO -> ALS. Is this correctly filed?
Lack of training from the community At-Large.OCL: yes, in the limited scope of Operational planning. SWG: Fue puesto así por estar dentro del BW
Excess multiple personal representatives in the various areas of decision. (Possible conflict of interest resulting from the participation of people with various institutional offices at regional level).OCL: yes, although we could reduce this entry as: "Conflict of Interest for participants having multiple stakes in the process"
SWG: Nosotros preferimos el texto como estaba antes
Excessive concentration of Ralos and ALSes on organizational and procedural issues, including access to funds for travel and meetings.OCL: yes

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 

The participation of 1 delegate from 1 ALS who did not participate in any ICANN meeting before through  Fellowship Program. OCL: I do not understand this comment; Seth could you please be so kind to investigate? Or Sylvia?
SWG: La idea es aprovechas la estructura del fellowship para que un miembro de la estrutura At Large que nunca halla participado asista a los meeting de ICANN
Encourage the participation of 1 ex - fellowship in RALOS teleconferences to yield insights into the community with the experience learned during the program.OCL: good idea but I don't think it fits in the operational planning process. Suggestions?
SWG: Ok lo pondremos en el punto AO

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.  SWOT on ALAC/At-Large budgetary planning 

This SWOT analysis relates to Rec. 6:  At-Large should develop accurate cost models.

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. 

Lack of funding to operate from the States where ALSes belong.OCL: I don't think that this relates to the cost model as such

Lack of social and corporate responsibility from IT companies for the financing of At-Large. (registry-registrars-ccTLD).OCL: possibly, yes, although I fail to see the link with cost models.

SWG: OK, Estos 2 puntos no van
Lack of efforts by ICANN to compliance with the Bylaws of LACRALO- MOU (in terms of the annual General Assemblies)OCL: yes, possibly

SWG: este último punto deberia quedar asi

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


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