Summary of Organisational Development and Comparison to GNSO Improvements Programme
Summary of At-Large Working Group Implementation
At-Large began to constitute working groups after the Lisbon ICANN meeting, in an effort to:
• Distribute the policy development process beyond the members of ALAC – the current load of policy work being greater than the 15 ALAC members felt they could (or should) handle personally;
• Provide more opportunities for the ALS community and the RALOs to participate in policy development
Initially, several working groups were constituted along thematic lines, such as WHOIS, Registrant-Registrar Relations, and IDNs. Mailing lists and sections of the ALAC Working Wiki (ALAC) were created for them to use. At the same time, working groups were created to help the various ALAC Liaisons to other ICANN organs as it was felt that the liaisons were often in the position of having to represent the whole At-Large community without the opportunity to easily gather input from that community. Mailing lists were created for each liaison, as well as wiki-based space.
The initial idea was that there should be at least one person from each RALO, and at least one ALAC member, on each working group, though there was no limitation on the number of people who could participate.
The IDN working group was the first to begin work, with its first task being developing answers to the questions that the ICANN Board asked all Advisory Committees and Supporting Organisations in relation to IDNs. In the end, most of this work ended up being done by a few members of the ALAC, though the members of the IDN working group did try to get as much feedback as possible, and all work on the answers to the questions was done online, on the wiki, to help ensure that the community was always able to comment and there was transparency to the effort.
For the first several months, despite repeated calls for volunteers, there was not a lot of activity in many of the working groups. There are primarily two reasons for this in our view:
• Staff support was only available to a limited extent. The At-Large department had two staff positions which took a very long time to fill, with the result that much of the development and staff support needed to ‘bootstrap’ the working groups was not as available as was required.
• The RALOs were very new, and only a few had begun the process of autonomous routine meetings and work. As a result, those RALOs who were active and meeting regularly tended to have participants on working groups, with the reverse also being the case.
In the meetings in Los Angeles, the regional Secretariats and the ALAC reviewed the progress to date in working group implementation and agreed that more needed to be done to ensure more participation from the ALSes. Making this a community priority did result in several new members of working groups joining from regions previously not well-represented – but again, the link between activity at the working group and activity at the regional level generally remained true, with African, Latin America & The Caribbean, and European participation continuing to be less in evidence (the same three regions not meeting regularly).
In advance of New Delhi, and at the New Delhi meeting, the ALAC leadership, with the support of the RALO Secretariats and ALAC members, made further embedding the working group concept a key priority. A number of technological provisions – expanding the number of SocialText workspaces to facilitate more direct editing by community members, and expanding the number of mailing lists – plus direct appeals to the community to participate – helped expand the ‘policy workforce’.
The other issues which working groups have experienced is that the relationship between them, the ALAC, the RALOs, and the wider community has not always been clear. This has been strength in that it has allowed these relationships to be defined dynamically, where a very structured and defined relationship from the outset may have proven to be inflexible. It has been a weakness, in that those involved have sometimes been frustrated by lack of clarity.
Another challenge has been that of starting the process of creating a text around which discussions could coalesce. Until March 2008, unless a member of the working group produced a draft text, often no resulting text was developed, leading to inertia and inaction.
In other cases, members of the community originated a draft text on a policy matter, but without a working group to take it forward the draft languished, leading to frustration on the part of members of the community.
As a result of these experiences, the Chair of the ALAC proposed, and ALAC accepted, having the Staff produce initial texts as a synthesis of the impression of the community’s views on the subject at hand, with considerable input from the Chair and others interested in the issue. This was made possible in part by the filling of one of the two open positions in the At-Large department.
This procedure was used to produce drafts in February and March 2008 on:
• The Proposal for an ICANN Travel Policy for Volunteers;
• A draft ALAC Statement to the Board on the initial Draft Budget and Operating Plan Framework;
• A draft ALAC Statement to the Board on the GNSO Improvements proposals
• An Accountability Framework for ALAC members and regional leaders with an accompanying Conflicts of Interest Policy
These drafts are in the later stages of community review, having been worked on by ALAC Subcommittees (the first two), an Ad-Hoc Working Group (the third), and the ALAC Executive Committee (the last). If this procedure works well and as a consequence spreads to the other working groups, it may make a results-based workplan more achievable – especially in working groups where language barriers exist as is likely to be the case in many areas of policy development.
This procedure has also allowed draft responses to be prepared earlier, with longer community-wide review time periods. It is hoped this will also bring in more participation.
The Language Barrier to Working on Policy in At-Large
One of the real barriers to participation in policy work in At-Large is linguistic. The LAC and African regions cannot effectively meet and work productively without simultaneous interpretation in Spanish and English (LAC), and French and English (Africa).
The replacement of teleconference providers in late 2007 opened the door to more regular work in multiple languages. The ALAC and the existing regional teleconferences changed over to the new provider and after a few months it was decided to try intrepretation on teleconferences again.
Whilst it is not perfect – interpretation works far better face-to-face than it does via teleconference, at least with the vendors that have tried – it has proven workable. As a result, the first LAC regional meeting via teleconference was held in March, and Africa will start holding theirs in May, with monthly meetings scheduled thereafter. Only Europe remains without regularly scheduled monthly teleconferences.
It is hoped that the result of these regions’ efforts to work concertedly and routinely will follow the trend seen with NARALO (North America) and APRALO (Asia-Australia and the Pacific Islands).
With respect to written communications, a process is shortly to be trialled where draft policy responses will be translated into French and Spanish so that the community-wide review periods will allow ALSes who are primarily non-English fluent to participate more fully in at least a part of the policy review process.
ALAC Organisational Development and Working Group Evolution
With the formation of all five RALOs, ALAC/At-Large Organizational Development (“OD”) represents the single most important parameter when considering the sustainability of any changes that may have been put in place during the process. It is the main tool to develop and manifest At-Large culture and it is the culture of At-Large that sustains how ALAC executes, embraces change, manages end users’ focus, creates new value and integrates new At-Large members and ALSs (At Large Structures).
Going through OD related processes is also one of the cornerstones for both Short Term and Long – Term Objectives. At-Large is aware that the Organizational Development process is complicated and it can take a long time to complete. OD is one of the important aspects of OD is that it is a holistic approach that allows the developments of several components. Amongst the most important ones are: data collection, data feedback and confrontation, action planning and problem solving, team building, inter group development and evaluation and follow--up.
At-Large started the implementation of certain activities in this regards:
• A ‘OneDay’ Workshop for ALAC was organized during the ICANN meeting in Los-Angeles, 2007;
• A ‘OneDay’ Workshop for ALAC, this time also including the regional Secretariats, was organized during the ICANN meeting in New Delhi, 2008.
These two events have several outcomes and have received positive feedback from most of those who participated in them.
The main benefits of these two Workshops were:
• ALAC spent time for team building activities (which has not been done before in a similar format);
• ALAC presented the new members with Rules and Procedures, policy issues and priorities in an effective and interactive manner;
• ALAC made a SWOT analyses of the current issues and problems and defined ways in which these can be addressed;
• ALAC used several instruments for Action Planning (e.g. the Gantt Chart);
• ALAC involved the RALO Secretariats in Working Groups Planning;
• ALAC worked on identifying ways in which RALO, ALSs and Public Participation can be encouraged.
ALAC is interested in continuous improvement and developments of its activities, so that it can better achieve its goals and objectives, as well as represent the voices of the end users community in the best possible way.
We believe that these Organizational Development activities have enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of the new body of ALAC/RALO/ALS and offer a sound base for further development in view of the ALAC Review now launched. We think the ALAC Review will contribute to the further enhancement of At-Large on a more sustainable and effective direction that will bring better value to ICANN as a whole.
All the materials: documents and reports produced by Organizational Development Working Group can be accessed at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?organisational_development
Summary
Implementing working groups, and ensuring the widest support for their work amongst the community, has taken longer, proven to be more complex, and required much greater staff resources than was expected when the first working groups were created. At the same time, the initial plan for how working groups were to organise themselves, and on what subjects, has also changed considerably, as has the relationship between working groups and other community governance structures.
At-Large remains committed to the broadest possible basis for policy development, and believes that small teams with effective staff support are the best way to do this – especially in a multicultural envonment where many participants are not comfortable with working in large groups.
Comparison of the At-Large Experience with the GNSO Improvements Recommedations in Specific
Recommendations re: Working Groups (GNSO Improvements report, section 3, p.12)
1. We agree with the recommendation made by the BGC WG which states that (section 3, p. 12 para 1) “a working group concept become the foundation and focal point for consensus policy development work in the GNSO, and potentially for other Council activities”.
We are glad to know that there are some good examples of Working Group models being discussed, such as IETF and W3C (section 3, p. 14) that are instructive for the GNSO. In this linevein, the ad-hoc group would like to share ALAC’s Working Group model, which might also be of interest for the GNSO. You may find further information on this work at organisational development.
As we mentioned in the summary above, the At Large Advisory Committee has been implementing the Working Group concept in addressing various issues and policy development process (PDP) for the last year.
In our New Delhi meetings we have updated the Working Group model, producing a document called What is an ALAC/At-Large Working Group at ICANN? (organisational development). In brief, “a Working Group is an interdisciplinary collaboration of ALAC and At Large members working on certain activities that would come to foster Internet end-users participation in ICANN processes and policies. The lifespan of the ALAC/At-Large WG can last between a few months and couple of years. An ALAC/At-Large WG exists as long as it can provide solutions to the problems and issues it addresses. The WG decides when to terminate its activity”.
The initial work on implementing the revised reporting system for At-Large Working Groups begain in New Delhi.
The results of this activity as well as feedback from all OneDay workshop participants can be found in the OneDay workshop for ALAC, New Delhi Report. (organisational development)
We recommend that the GNSO Council and those implementing the GNSO Improvement programmes examine the ALAC/At-Large experience in implementing the Working Group model and if relevant, approach ALAC/At-Large with questions and clarifications for more details.
Recommendations Re: Steps to improve inclusiveness (GNSO Improvements report, section 3.1, p.16)
We endorse the statement that (section 3.1, p. 16, para 1) “…This inclusiveness can have significant benefits in terms of being able to develop, and then implement, policies addressing complex or controversial issues”.
ALAC/At-Large believes that by improving its inclusiveness, the GNSO will not only have more diverse individuals involved – even more importantly, it will become an individual - centred body that values the perspectives and contributions of all people, and strives to incorporate the needs and viewpoints of diverse communities into its policy development and other work.
In this context, ALAC/At-Large highlights a number of challenges associated with the proposed model/approach:
• Awareness of different cultural nuances, and the need to use that awareness when planning and implementing PDP, and other activities;
• Understanding that all people do not respond in the same way to messages, and recognizing that it is important to communicate in culturally appropriate and sensitive ways;
• Developing internal systems to help bridge cultural gaps between people from different backgrounds, and trying to ensure that all voices are listened to and that all backgrounds are respected;
• GNSO Self-awareness, this means intentional solicitation and listening to feedback about itself from those involved in GNSO related processes and activities;
• Realizing that there are no simple answers to the challenges and to the emerging problems, but that GNSO’s diverse community provides opportunities at many levels;
• Understanding that conflict is natural and the best way to manage conflict is for the GNSO to do its best to effectively anticipate, manage, and resolve conflict.
In line with GNSO’s intent to improve inclusiveness, ALAC/At-Large wants to share from its own experience on this issue, that with the formation of all five RALOs, we have been in a situation to update and adjust internal ALAC/At-Large processes to the new reality, and we have initiated an Organizational Development Working Group (ODWG) within ALAC/At-Large since the Los Angeles meeting in order to address several issues, including INCLUSIVENESS in ALAC/At-Large policy development processes. The main document produced by the ODWG is called ALAC/ALarge Organizational Development Components: organisational development.
For ALAC/At-Large, inclusiveness is an important parameter and is one of our main tools to develop and manifest ALAC/At-Large culture, and to create new value and integrate new ALAC/At-Large members and ALSs (At-Large Structures).
In the New Delhi “OneDay” Workshop we had not only ALAC members participating but RALOs Secretariats and some representatives of the ICANN Community as well. For the Paris meeting, we intend to invite representatives of various constituencies at ICANN to the “OneDay” Workshop for ALAC (phase 3) in order to open up more inclusive participation from the community.
We recommend that GNSO Council:
1. Defines inclusiveness and diversity and creates the case for inclusiveness for GNSO (including the already mentioned steps in the report: section 3.1, p. 16, para 2);
2. Gathers information (available facts and stakeholders perspective regarding GNSO’s inclusiveness issues);
3. Uses the information gathered and completes an inclusiveness related Action Plan that defines concrete goals, objectives and tasks that would help GNSO achieve the change it seeks;
4. Implements/Tests the Inclusiveness at GNSO Action Plan and shares the results with the other Constituencies at ICANN.
Recommendations Re: Steps to improve effectiveness (GNSO Improvements report, section 3.2, p.16-18)
We endorse that GNSO inclusiveness shall not compromise its effectiveness (section 3.2 Para 1), but on the contrary, it’s effectiveness is assured via the various mechanisms and tools as described in the same Para of section 3.2 of the report.
We support the statement related to “participation in working groups of those who are not comfortable working in English” (section 3.2, page 18, last para). ALAC’s challenge at the moment is ensuring that its meetings and processes are more effective by allowing everyone to be involved, including via provision of translation and interpretation for non-fluent English speaking members of the At-Large Community.
Recommendations Re: Steps to improve impact
We recommend that GNSO starts identifying in the next 2-3 years ways and methodologies for assessing the impact of the GNSO’s PDPs, recommendations and other related activities, as well as identifying steps for further improvement of its impact. We understand that this is a long-term process that requires considerable resources and time.
We recommend that budget and resource requirements must also be forecasted and considered for this purpose.
