No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
1ICANN should continue to support outreach programmes that engage a broader audience, in order to reinforce participation from all stakeholders.ICANN Board; ICANN Staff

TG1  

COMPLETE
Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community, especially the ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement, has closely collaborated with ICANN staff departments in the creation, implementation, and refinement of outreach programs that aim to engage audience in various geographic regions.

These efforts include Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Department’s regional strategies, NextGen, Fellowship, and Mentorship programs under the Development and Public Responsibility Department, and the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program.

As a direct beneficiary of those programs, At-Large has seen a marked increase of accredited At-Large Structures in all regions, as well as the attendance of its teleconferences, webinars, briefings, and face-to-face meetings. Greater engagement has brought active participation and diverse views to the policy activities in ICANN.

Next Step

At-Large will continue collaborating with ICANN staff to ensure the lasting success of those programs and will help develop future outreach programs and services. 


Actions: 

  • Chair of TG1 (Leon Sanchez, Rafid Fatani, Evan Leibovitch, Adam Peake) to develop a paragraph and expand the notion of 'broader' based on the materials of the TG1; 

    • Ariel Liang to ask whether the original assignees can still follow up on Rec 1
    • Leon Sanchez to touch base with whoever still available to implement Rec 1 to push for progress 
    • Assignees to contact the Next Gen program (Nora Abusitta & Lauren Allison from UPRD) and encourage the Next Gen students to engage more with ICANN community groups during ICANN meetings (e.g. invite them to ALAC sessions, showcase) 
  • :
    • Dev Anand Teelucksingh to relay this recommendation to the O&E SC and note whether meeting B will be a good opportunity to implement this recommendation 

Notes:

  • Broader audience = underrepresented community members?
  • ICANN’s efforts to bring in new people should not be limited to people in developing countries but also under-represented community members that live in developed countries. Therefore, ICANN should extend its programs in place to all underserved communities.
  • : Next Gen students are brought to ICANN Meetings but have limited exposure to ICANN community groups. To enhance this program's outreach effect, Next Gen students should participate more in community sessions during ICANN Meetings. 
    • This recommendation is linked to Recommendation #21: https://community.icann.org/x/TZZCAw
    • B meeting will be an opportunity to implement Recommendation #1 (more than recommendation #21?), as it is the only meeting that ICANN communities will have a specific day dedicated to outreach and it may be easier for the community to make specific request to conduct those activities.
  •  (update from the GSE, slides
    • Note on Slide: The regional engagement strategies describe how outreach activities reinforce participation across all stakeholder groups.
    • Pierre Dandijnou on the 2nd version of the Africa outreach strategy: 
      • It has 2 objectives: 1) to increase participation from Africa, 2) to support the DNS market and contribute to the digital economy in Africa. 
      • There are a host of projects around, and the flagship projects are the DNSSEC, for instance, for the security issues. GSE is also working on the DNS entrepreneurship and startups will be launched. GSE is expecting quick results to increase participation within ICANN, but also make sure that ICANN is better known in Africa. 
    • Rodrigo De la Parra on Latin American and Caribbean Strategy: 
      • There is a renewed strategy goes from 2016 to 2020 (presentation on Jan 28, 2016) 
      • The new objectives for the Latin American plan are now aligned to the new ICANN Strategy
      • One of the main concerns in the Latin America and Caribbean community is to have more participation of Latin American and Caribbean participants in ICANN, especially in terms of occupying leadership positions within the community.
      • Capacity building has also been one of the main issues and main focuses in our strategy.
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Is there good coordination between the different VPs? It looks at the moment that some regions have made more progress than other regions. 
    • Sally Costerton: 
      • Between the GSE Teams and the evenness of the programs, the ones that are community-led are community-led. So the evenness is what it is. It depends very much on what the community team wants to do. They are only facilitated by the VPs. That is a characteristic of the region and the particular priorities that that region has. 
      • Are we exchanging best practice at a staff level? The answer is yes, we are. We had a full day here actually with the entire GSE Team. We also had some other staff with us from other teams on Wednesday this week, to do exactly that. That was the theme of the day – to exchange best practice. So the teams are increasingly sharing information and knowledge. We’re starting to move programs, such as the policy read-out. 
    • Fatima Cambronero: Argentina was excluded from the countries that can apply as Fellows, according to the World Bank list. In Argentina there are many leaders who have been in the Fellowship Program who are currently engaged, and many activities are being organized. 
    • Alberto Soto: Haiti needs participation in the Fellowship program the most, because it is the country with the least penetration of the Internet. Dominican Republic has had representatives twice, and Haiti has never been represented.
    • Sally Costerton: Argentina is not the only country that has fallen off the radar because of this World Bank classification. We obviously have to use something to decide where we’re going to allocate the resources. It’s becoming very clear that in some parts of South America, and also in some parts of Eastern Europe, there has been very low engagement with the ICANN issues because of this. Nora Abusitta who makes the decisions about this, is in the middle of reviewing how we do this, to make sure that these countries are engaged. 
    • Vanda Scartezini: We need to focus on the B meeting and  focus everybody in that region on making it happen and getting good feedback from outreach.
    • Sally Costerton: There’s a strong, bottom-up, community request in these proposals that we focus on outreach, and part of the point of the B Meeting is to take the meeting to places where it can’t go. So we really are very committed, at a staff level, to putting time and energy behind this, as well as money and resources. 


Input from Outreach & Engagement: 

  •  
    • Staff has confirmed that Sally Costerton's team and Nora Abusitta's team (including Jeffrey Dunn & Janice Douma Lange) will be invited to the Sunday ALAC session in ICANN 54 
    • Next Gen will participate in the O&E SC meeting in Dublin 

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
3ICANN should continue to shape an accountability model reaching not only Board members but all parts of the ICANN community, in order to develop a more transparent and productive environmentICANN Board; ICANN Staff; ICANN CommunityTG1
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

At-Large Community members actively contributed to the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, which produced a set of enhancements to ICANN's accountability mechanisms that must be in place within the time frame of the IANA stewardship transition. Establishing an Empowered Community, which would make the ICANN Board more accountable, is one of the final recommendations. The Work Stream 1 proposal has been approved by the ICANN community and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The implementation of the recommendations is underway, and the At-Large Advisory Committee is formal participant in the Empowered Community. In addition, the Board has also put in place measures to increase the transparency of their work processes, including publishing Board meeting transcripts.

Focused on addressing broader accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition, the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 would propose further enhancements to a number of designated mechanisms, including the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee accountability, staff accountability, and improving ICANN’s transparency. At-Large members have been leaders and/or active participants in different SubGroups in Work Stream 2.

Next Step

At-Large will continue engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 to help shape the accountability model reaching all parts of the ICANN community. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate.


Notes:

  • Could feed into ICANN accountability process and At-Large work in this process

    • CCWG Accountability has been tackling the accountability model reaching the 'Board' Work Stream 1;  Work Stream 2 will tackle the accountability model reaching the rest of the ICANN community. 

    • The content of recommendation is on the radar of the CCWG-Accountability and is within the scope of its work; the CCWG is making recommendations as part of the organizational reviews.  
    • This is a recommendation from the At-Large Community but it is not really up to At-Large to implement it single handedly. Nonetheless, the issue mentioned in the recommendation is regarded as an active issue of the whole ICANN community. At-Large is part of the process. 
    • This recommendation gives ALAC members the ability in the CCWG to press issues that the At-Large community feels strongly about.
    • Many stakeholders have raised this issue during the 2nd public comment period of the CCWG-Accountability. This might be one of the main issues of concern with regard to the single membership model and other alternative model proposed by the CCWG-Accountability. If the community is given too much power, the accountability of the community may be at risk and unintended problems may occur. This issue will most likely be discussed during the CCWG f2f meetings in LA and Dublin. 

    • In the final Proposal of CCWG-Accountability WS1, it includes the Community Power which makes Board members more accountable. The Proposal has been ratified and passed to NTIA, pending review from the Congress. 

    • WS2 will deal with the broader accountability issues; 

    • Board has come up with measures to make their work more transparent, including publishing their meeting transcripts (http://www.internetcommerce.org/icann-board-decisions-to-become-more-transparent, e.g.: ICANN should do no less. Every official ICANN Board meeting should be webcast in real time. When the Board is meeting telephonically then the Web audiocast should be available simultaneously. And all should be archived for future access and review. Only limited redactions should be made, such as when the Board is discussing internal personnel matters or when the proprietary and confidential information of a contracted party might be revealed, and then only if a rationale is provided)

    • Next Step: At-Large Community should encourage members to participate in WS2

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
5ICANN should examine how best to ensure that end-users remain at the heart of the accountability process in all aspects pertaining to the transition of stewardship of the IANA function.ICANN Board; ICANN Staff; ICANN CommunityTG1
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has played a vital role in all aspects pertaining to the transition of the IANA stewardship, contributing valuable end user input. The ALAC is a chartering organization of both the CWG-IANA and CCWG-Accountability. It also has representatives in the IANA Coordination Group. In those groups,  At-Large Community appointees not only actively participated, but also often held Chair or Vice Chair positions in leading the work, shepherding the processes, and influencing the outcome.

The IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Recommendations have been approved by the ICANN community and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In the post transition implementation, the ALAC is a formal participant in the Empowered Community, which would empower end users to hold ICANN Board accountable. An ALAC Liaison is involved in the operational oversight, previously performed by the NTIA and will then performed by a Customer Standing Committee (CSC), as it relates to the monitoring of ICANN’s performance of the IANA naming functions. The ALAC will also appoint representatives to the IANA Functions Review Process as per proposal’s requirements.

Focused on addressing broader accountability topics that extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition, the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 would propose further enhancements to a number of designated accountability mechanisms. At-Large members have also been leaders and/or active participants in different SubGroups in Work Stream 2.

Next Step

At-Large will continue playing its critical role in the post transition implementation and engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate proactively and make greater influence.


Notes: 

  • Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA issues WG.

    • It is a very important recommendation. Are we pushing enough to strengthen the position of the end users (this concerns the question of civil society and the role of ALAC/At-Large)? It seems that we haven't pushed CCWG-Accountability to fully address those questions and consider the position of end users. 
    • The ALAC/At-Large have been advocating for end users to balance the power of other interested parties, and will continue to do so.  
    • We are not in the position to say that the end user rights are more important than other rights. 
    • Should the ALAC advocate that the end users' concerns trump other concerns? Yes, in some cases, users should take dominance; but not all the time. 
    • The needs of users may not be so much different from the needs of other parties. For example, regarding IANA stewardship transition, there is almost 100% overlap between the interests of registries and the interests of users in terms of the operational aspect of IANA functions. 
    • Assignees shall evaluate the implementation of this recommendation pending the outcome (i.e. final report) of the CCWG-Accountability.
    • We cannot say that the recommendation has already been implemented. 
    • End users are at the heart of the accountability process, but have limited knowledge and influence in the process. 
    • The Empowered Community (EC) model in WS1 will empower end users to hold ICANN accountable; the Proposal has been ratified and passed to NTIA, pending review from the Congress

    • At-Large Community members to participate in WS2 more proactively to make greater influence



 

e
 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
 6ICANN’s MSM should serve as the reference in encouraging all participants (individuals or parties) to declare and update existing or potential conflicts-of-interest, each time a vote takes place or consensus is sought.ICANN Board; ICANN Staff; ICANN CommunityTG1
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETED - Pending confirmation from the ALAC regarding the 'Next Step'

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has an established practice for members to declare and update existing or potential conflicts-of-interest via the online Statement of Interest (SOI) form. In particular, before and after an ALAC or RALO election or selection, relevant At-Large members are required to update their SOIs. ALAC members, ALAC liaisons, and RALO leaders are also requested to update their SOIs immediately following every Annual General Meeting.

In other ICANN groups, such practice also exists but varies somewhat, depending on their rules and work procedures. For example, in the GNSO, its working groups require every member to fill out a SOI as a prerequisite for membership; GNSO Council members must state changes to their SOIs, if any, at the beginning of every Council meeting.

However, there is limitation to expand or streamline such practice in all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees due to their structural or operational differences. They need to develop their own workable, enforceable mechanism to ensure that members declare and update conflicts-of-interest regularly and on a timely manner.

Next Step

The At-Large Community will continue improving its mechanism for members to declare and update conflicts-of-interest. The ALAC will follow GNSO’s example and require ALAC members and liaisons to state changes to their SOIs, if any, at the beginning of every ALAC monthly teleconference.


Actions: 

  • : Assignees to modify the wording of this recommendation  
  • : Ariel Liang to email this recommendation to the IANA-issues mailing list to encourage members to propose modified wording. 


Notes: 

    • It seems to be a standard practice as it is reflected in the way that working groups and the Board conduct their work. 
    • It is uncertain whether all participants explicitly declare and update existing or potential conflicts-of-interests. This request doesn't seem to be included in the CCWG-Accountability Report. 

    • The wording of this recommendation seems to be a bit over-reaching. We may not want to have all members to declare conflicts of interests during every single vote. We, however, expect members to update their conflicts of interests regularly. 
    • Re conflicts of interests updates, it seems that every community group has some type of rules (e.g. SOIs in GNSO, ALAC) that are appropriate to what they are doing. 
    • Conflict of interests issues will be dealt with by CCWG-Accountability WS2? 

    • Members' conflicts of interests should be updated if their status change (with regard to their work and other potential areas of conflict of interests). 

    •  At-Large Community has already established the practice of updating SOIs before elections and selections

    • Some ICANN community groups require members to update their SOIs whenever a meeting takes place (more than requested in the recommendation) (e.g. every GNSO council member states changes to their SOIs, if any, at the beginning of every Council meeting); however, there is limitation to expand this practice in every stakeholder group (e.g. ccNSO);

    • ALAC to follow GNSO’s example to require members to update their SOIs and state changes, if any, before every ALAC meeting as a standing agenda item 

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
 7A periodic review of ICANN's MSM should be performed to ensure that the processes and the composition of ICANN’s constituent parts adequately address the relevant decision-making requirements in the CorporationICANN BoardTG1
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

IN PROGRESS 

Summary

Implementation Details

Periodic Organizational Reviews are performed by independent examiners for each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) (excluding the Governmental Advisory Committee - GAC), the Nominating Committee, Board of Directors, and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG). These reviews are meant to determine whether the organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

However, there does not seem to be a periodic review of the overall composition and balance of ICANN’s stakeholder groups.

While the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability WS2) has a SubGroup that addresses the SO/AC Accountability issues, evaluating the composition of ICANN’s constituent parts is not within the scope of its work.  

Next Step

The ALAC will advise the ICANN Board to initiate a process -- whether through an existing review process in ICANN (e.g. The Third Accountability and Transparency Review - ATRT3) or through a new periodic review process -- to evaluate the overall composition and balance of stakeholder representation in relations to their decision-making requirements in ICANN.


Action: 

  • : Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC mailing list for review. 
  • : Olivier Crepin-Leblond to get in touch with the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (Rinalia Abdul Rahim) with Alan Greenberg's permission 

 


Notes: 

  • Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA issues WG.

    • CCWG-Accountability doesn't seem to work on the specifics as mentioned in the recommendations; 
    • In Work Stream 2, the CCWG will discuss how the rest of the community should be accountable to each other and the rest of the Board. Hence, this recommendation may be addressed after the IANA transition. 

    • Seems to be a fair assessment re previous notes. 

    • WS2 will address the accountability issue for all parts of ICANN. This recommendation doesn't concern that issue. 
    • Tijani Ben Jemaa: This recommendation speaks about the decision-making process in ICANN and the distribution of power? 
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond: This recommendation talks about the review of all components of ICANN (e.g. the roles and structures of SOs/ACs). The organizational reviews address this. Another path of dressing this would be the CCWG-Accountability WS2? 
    • Tijani Ben Jemaa / Sebastien Bachollet: This recommendation is not really within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability. CCWG-Accountability WS2 will touch on the roles and structures of SOs/ACs, but its work is not all about organizational reviews. Maybe ATRT or other processes will address the global review of ICANN in a more systematic manner. 
    • R3 White Paper of the Future Challenges WG (re. restructuring ICANN) may be relevant to this recommendation. The ALAC needs to understand what exactly it wants out of this recommendation. 
    • This recommendation is related to ATLAS II Recommendation 13

    • The Board and every SO/AC has a full organization review

    • CCWG-Accountability WS2 *might* have an analysis and study of the overall multistakeholder model of ICANN; 

    • there does not seem to be a review of the overall MSM of ICANN -- this should be a topic of one of the existing reviews

       

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
9ICANN should open regional offices with a clear strategy, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the areas where the access to the Internet is growing, and where such growth is more likely to occur.ICANN Board; ICANN StaffTG2
  • Staff
  • ALAC

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has championed ICANN staff efforts of opening regional offices to enhance engagement.

Following a strategic vision, ICANN has established stable presence in all five geographic regions, especially in the growth markets, by building hubs in Los Angeles, Istanbul, and Singapore, as well as engagement centers in Beijing, Brussels, Geneva, Montevideo, Nairobi, Seoul, and Washington DC. 

These regional offices have significantly increased ICANN’s involvement in regional Internet events. They have also enabled greater collaboration between ICANN staff and local At-Large Structures. This has been reflected on ALSes’ participation in ICANN’s IDN LGR integration panel, as well as the implementation of the regional strategies, with components including capacity building webinars and language localization projects.

Next Step

At-Large Structures will continue engaging with ICANN regional offices to explore various forms of collaboration.

 


Actions:

  • Staff to provide the Strategy document before LA.
  • ALAC to expand on this recommendation

    • Ariel Liang to follow up the GSE team and Heidi Ullrich with regard to the Strategy document 

Notes: 

 (ALAC-GSE Part 1) 

  • Note on Slide: This should be referred to ICANN’s Operations Team
  • Olivier Crepin-Leblond: 
    • It's pretty much done and dusted. ICANN has opened offices to cover all of the five regions, so that works well. 


 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
11ICANN must implement a range of services to facilitate access according to various criteria (gender; cultural diversity) and user needs (disabilities, etc…).ICANN Board; ICANN StaffTG2
  • Accessibility
  • Technology Taskforce

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

Having made ICANN realizes the fundamental importance of inclusion and diversity, the At-Large Community has played a key role in the implementation of ICANN’s programs and services to embrace communities that have historically suffered from barriers to access. 

At-Large has researched and tested various captioning and translation tools, and this effort has resulted in the successful implementation of live captioning services during its teleconferences in FY16. This service will be extended in FY17. Addressing the digital divide throughout the native population in North America, an At-Large pilot project will send a student ambassador from the Indian Country in the US, accompanied by two adult coaches, to an ICANN conference to advocate for the rights of tribal communities in Internet policymaking. Spearheaded by At-Large, the Cross Community Committee on Accessibility has been established for the wider ICANN Community to collaborate with relevant staff departments in identifying web accessibility issues, raising awareness of those issues, and improving accessibility as a continued effort. 

The aforementioned efforts have facilitated the participation for non-English speakers, underserved communities, and people with disability and special needs in ICANN activities.

Next Step

At-Large will continue collaborating with ICANN staff to raise accessibility awareness, ensure the lasting success of existing programs and services, and help develop future programs and services for accessibility improvements.


Actions: 

    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to send the ICANN Board Chairman and ask whether they require any further info on REC 11 and how ICANN has been acting on this recommendation. Olivier Crepin-Leblond will ask ALAC Chair's permission first. 

    • At-Large Staff to ask Chris Gift's team re the implementation of this rec 

Notes:

  • ICANN can meet it's strategic goals for inclusion and diversity through the implementation of services that embraces the various communities which have historically suffered from barriers of access.

  • ICANN should use caption technology for all its calls, meetings and presentations. This tool not only makes all ICANN activities and programs accessible to Deaf, blind and low vision consumers, but also the English only calls to be translated into multiple languages courtesy of Google translate. Having the captions available in English also helps people in the ICANN community whose first language is not English as most people can read English even if they can not speak or understand it.

  • Captioning technology review for conference calls (joint work between the two taskforces): https://community.icann.org/x/8xvxAg
  • Prioritization from the primary objectives for the taskforce – including an identification of the key short, medium and long term opportunities: https://community.icann.org/x/EcXhAg
  • The discussion has been furthered with key ICANN staff during the Accessibility Working Group meeting during ICANN 51: https://community.icann.org/x/kxvxAg

  • : From At-Large side, this recommendation has been completed. Its status depends on the progress on the ICANN Staff side. 


Input from Technology Taskforce: 



ATLAS2 Recommendation 11 reads as follows:

Recommendation

ICANN must implement a range of services to facilitate access according to various criteria (gender; cultural diversity) and user needs (disabilities, etc…).

Rationale

ICANN can meet it's strategic goals for inclusion and diversity through the implementation of services that embraces the various communities which have historically suffered from barriers of access.
Implement online tools ie. Captions First to provide visual aids to the disabled attendees and those with English as a second language. Enhancing their experience

ICANN should use caption technology for all its calls, meetings and presentations.  This tool not only makes all ICANN activities and programs accessible to Deaf, blind and low vision consumers.  Additionally it adds an added feature in that the English only calls can be translated into multiple languages courtesy of google translate.

As a US corporation, closed captioning is mandated under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in all areas which is why ICANN should adopt captioning on all its calls to best meet these obligations under the Act. Accessibility is the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is available to as many people as possible; It is not to be confused with usability, which is the extent to which a product (such as a device, service, or environment) can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.

Captioning is essentially the same as a transcription of the audio portion of a program as it occurs (either verbatim or in edited form), sometimes including descriptions of non-speech elements. Other uses have been to provide a textual alternative language translation of a presentation's primary audio language which is usually burned-in (or open) to the video and not selectable (or closed). Captioning is done by trained operators who can either be local or remote as long as they have a direct feed to the speakers.

Having the captions available in English also helps people in the ICANN community whose first language is not English as most people can read English even if they can not speak or understand it.

The link below will bring you to the archive of the call and the demonstration of how captioning works. We demoed two caption Pods, the one built into Adobe Connect and the one developed by Captions First. in the call below you can see how this works.

https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1h7z2vs214/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

The difference between the two captioning systems is that the Adobe Connect version only displays text line by line and the Captions First system does it word by word.  It also allows for more lines of text to be displayed as well as changes to the color of the captions and the font.  These changes make it more easier for users to see and read the text. See image below.

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 5.19.24 PM.png

Additionally changes in the background colors allow persons with disabilities like Dyslexia to see text better, which also helps this disadvantage group as well. See image below.


Screen Shot-change of colors.png

 Captions First also provides a separate website for those people with limited bandwidth to see the captions on a separate web page that only displays text. This issue of limited bandwidth is another issue that is mentioned in this recommendation. The call showcases how this is done as well.See image and links in the image below.

 You can also see how the language translation feature works as well.  Later in the call it shows how to use the google translate button along with the captions to translate the captions into multiple languages.

Example of  English to German and Japanese

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 5.03.39 PM.png


The cost for the raw and live captioning of the Adobe connect call is $130 and hour plus 18 an hour to clean up the transcripts and makes sure that all people are identified. Transcripts are available within a few days. Caption first can also provide captions in Spanish as well as English. However, Spanish captions cost $165 an hour. The Spanish captions can work along with the Spanish Interpreters. Both captioners can be hired with a few days notice.


 

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
13ICANN should  review  the  overall  balance  of  stakeholder  representation  to  ensure  that appropriate consideration is given to all views, proportionally to their scope and relevance.ICANN BoardTG2
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

IN PROGRESS 

Summary

Implementation Details

Periodic Organizational Reviews are performed by independent examiners for each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) (excluding the Governmental Advisory Committee - GAC), the Nominating Committee, Board of Directors, and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG). These reviews are meant to determine whether the organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

However, there does not seem to be a periodic review of the overall composition and balance of ICANN’s stakeholder groups.

While the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2 (CCWG-Accountability WS2)has a SubGroup that addresses the SO/AC Accountability issues, evaluating the composition of ICANN’s constituent parts is not within the scope of its work.  

Next Step

The ALAC will advise the ICANN Board to initiate a process -- whether through an existing review process in ICANN (e.g. The Third Accountability and Transparency Review - ATRT3) or through a new periodic review process --  to evaluate the overall composition and balance of ICANN stakeholder representation, ensuring that appropriate consideration is given to all views, proportionally to their scope and relevance.


Actions: 

  • : Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC list for review.

Notes: 

  • Could feed in the accountability process

    • Part of the CCWG Accountability work (Stress Test regarding the GAC advice) may be relevant to this recommendation 
    • This recommendation is related to ATLAS II Recommendation 7, as they address different aspects of the same question. Comments on ATLAS II Recommendation 7 apply here as well. 
    • The ALAC needs to discuss this Rec 7 and Rec 13 to clearly understand what the ALAC wants out of these recommendations. 
    • ATLAS II Recommendation 7 is directly related to this recommendation

    • The definition of ‘balance’ needs to be clarified, WS2 may explore this topic

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
14ICANN should adjust its contractual framework to minimize conflict between its requirements and relevant national laws.ICANN Board; ICANN StaffTG2

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has been keen on advising ICANN to systematically adjust its contractual framework and minimize the conflict between contractual requirements and national laws/regulations. For example, the ALAC is in process preparing a Statement that advises ICANN to improve the Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request process and to develop a preemptive solution that minimizes the legal, financial, and operational impact on non-US registrars.

At-Large members have also been actively contributing to the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream Jurisdiction SubGroup. One of the work areas of the SubGroup is to address ICANN’s relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, and freedom of expression.

Next Step

The ALAC will submit the advice to the ICANN Board with regard to the Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request process. At-Large will continue engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Jurisdiction SubGroup. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate proactively and make greater influence.

 


Actions: 


Notes: 

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
15ICANN should examine the possibility of modifying its legal structure befitting a truly global organization, and examine appropriate legal and organizational solutions.ICANN BoardTG2
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

Jurisdiction is one of the most significant topics in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2. At-large members have been actively contributing to the work of the Jurisdiction SubGroup. The primary jurisdiction issue being investigated is the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated.

Next Step

At-Large will continue engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Jurisdiction SubGroup. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate proactively and make greater influence.

 


Notes: 


    • Part of the CCWG Accountability's work (e.g. proposal of the single membership model) deals with the legal structure; 
    • Some areas of the legal discussions (e.g. whether the ICANN headquarter should be within the US) will not take place until Work Stream 2 or even later. 

    • Most of the CCWG Accountability's work is addressing organizational solution
    • It seems that this topic (i.e. jurisdiction issues) will be addressed in WS2 
    • Jurisdiction issue is one of the most significant topics in CCWG-Accountability WS2

    • At-Large members should be encouraged to participate in WS2

 

 

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
16ICANN needs to improve their direct communications regardless of time zones.ICANN Board; ICANN GSE StaffTG2
  • ATLAS II IT
  • ALT

COMPLETED - No Response Required

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has made a firm commitment for the rotation of its teleconferences, webinars, and briefings to cater to participants in various time zones.

At-Large has also made ICANN treats time zone accommodation a priority in enhancing inclusion and diversity.

As a result, there has been an absolute increase of the rotation of teleconferences across ICANN, particularly in cross community working groups and webinars and briefings held by staff departments. 

Next Step

At-Large will maintain a watching brief on the rotation of teleconferences within ICANN and other improvements of communications across various time zones.


Actions: 


    • ATLAS II IT to ask ALT to confirm that there has been a firm commitment re continuing the system of rotation for At-Large calls, webinars, and briefings 
    • ALAC to ask ICANN Board and GSE Staff to confirm that there has been a firm commitment re continuing the system of rotation for ICANN calls, webinars, and briefings  

Notes: 

  • An absolute increase of the rotation of calls among different time zones; especially the rotation of calls in the IANA CWG, Accountability CCWG, and ICG are supported by our community; 
  • The At-Large calls are about to rotate to cater to attendees in different time zones 
  • Making decision within 24hr period is still a challenge 
  • (update from the GSE, slides
    • Note on slide: This is being addressed through rotation of time zones for QSC and in some working groups with rotation of call times. This recommendation is not limited to GSE, but also applies to other departments across ICANN.

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
20Input the user perspective, wherever necessary, to advance accountability, transparency and policy development within ICANN.ICANN BoardTG3
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETED

 


Notes: 

  • Proposal is to give mandate to a new ad hoc At-Large WG on Accountability
  • Will address this rec in sync with the accountability track
    • At-Large Ad-Hoc IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Working Group has the mandate to implement the specifics of this recommendation. Is this enough?
    • ALAC members in the CCWG Accountability have been advocating for the interests of end users, and have been facing challenges in doing this; we need continue doing this Work Stream 2 and later on
    • ATRT 3 will start shortly, and this can also be an opportunity for advocating for end user interests; the ALAC needs to select representative for the ATRT3. 
    • Who should do this is uncertain, and this can be problematic, as the ALAC is a volunteer-based group. It requires more people to follow through. 
    • The upcoming At-Large/ALAC Review will produce output related to the expectations and evaluation criteria of ALSes. This output will be relevant to this recommendation, as it may construct formalized ways to continuously engage volunteers in the work of At-Large in a sustainable manner. The work of the ALS Criteria and Expectations Taskforce will be complementary in this aspect, but the upcoming At-Large/ALAC Review will be crucial. 
    • At-Large members (including ALSes, in addition to the At-Large Review WP) should engage in the At-Large review


 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
21Encourage public campaigns on using the Internet for education, information, creativity and empowerment.ICANN Board; GSE StaffTG3
  • Outreach & Engagement
  • Social Media

DISCARD

 


Actions: 

  • Social Media WG to clarify the recommendations with TG3 leaders (Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Fatima Cambronero, Wolf Ludwig, Gunela Astbrink, Glenn McKnight, Judith Hellerstein) 
  • Leon Sanchez, Murray McKercher to contact GSE staff and learn about their past public campaign efforts 
  • Leon Sanchez to attend the GSE meeting in Singapore on Sunday 8 Feb 2015 
  • Dev Anand Teelucksingh to relay this recommendation to the O&E SC and note whether B meeting will be a good opportunity to encourage public campaigns

Notes: 

    • ICANN Staff-organized fellowship and next gen programs can be considered part of this effort. 
    • B meeting may be a good opportunity to encourage public campaigns on those topics, as it is the only meeting that ICANN communities will have a specific day dedicated to outreach and it may be easier for the community to make specific request to conduct those activities.  Hence, this recommendation is linked to Recommendation #1: https://community.icann.org/x/JJZCAw
    • At-Large Ad-Hoc New Meeting Strategy Working Group has been looking into regional strategy for outreach activities in B meeting. 
    • ALSes should have a large role to play in education, information, creativity, and empowerment related to Internet Governance and ICT issues. They should share their own public campaigns via various communication platforms (e.g. wiki, social media) with the wider At-Large community. 
    • At-Large needs to provide a platform that serves as an one-stop shop for showcasing the ALS efforts in public campaigns and helping RALOs exchange information.  
    • A shared calendar can be such one-stop shop (both NARALO and LACRALO strongly supports this). RALOs, GSE, and even NomCom can use the calendar to coordinate the events in the region in order to do outreach and encourage participation. Users can view the events and subscribe to the calendar. Admins can include their own event entries but won't be able to override other people's entries. If successful, this calendar can be expanded to allow other stakeholder groups to update their events. 
    • Outreach & Engagement SC has found a shared calendar solution (i.e. team-up: http://teamup.com/ks9df2f9bc986a0d72/) and presented it during the Aug 17 call (https://community.icann.org/x/OJNCAw). It has already been set up and rolled out for the RALOs to update their events. 
    • It's the responsibility of RALO Chairs and Secretariats to do ALS management and make communication/publicity tools aware to the ALSes and encourage them to share their efforts across the community (e.g. monthly ALS spotlight is not enough). 
    • It is recognized that there is challenge for RALOs to obtain fundings to send members to attend regional events. Applicants need to submit application well in advance (usually in Jan or Feb) in order to have a chance to pursue those travel opportunities. 
    • The CROPP funding has limitations, as it allows people to travel to attend organized events but not for organizing new events locally. Hence, this recommendation also links to Recommendation #40 (https://community.icann.org/x/dJZCAw): ICANN should offer process similar to the CROPP, but not related to travel
    • In line with the public campaign topics, there may be room for collaboration between At-Large, NCSG, NCUC, and NPOC to do public campaigns focusing on civil society engagement. 
    • No need to add additional request re this recommendation, just to report on the progress. 
    • ICANN can share existing resources and/or resources from I* organizations, RIRs to develop public campaigns. At-Large community should not spearhead those types of campaigns. 
    • Some ALSes may be monitoring social media tools/platforms that are blocked in certain regions, and it would be worthwhile to get more information from them 
    • Public campaign is outside the remit of ICANN. 
  •  (update from the GSE, slides)
    • Note on slide:  It would be helpful to hear from At-Large on how they see this within ICANN’s remit. This recommendation is being addressed by other groups outside ICANN.


Input from Outreach & Engagement Sub-committee: 

  • Not in ICANN's core mission & value
  • Collaborate with other I* organizations, but not to spearhead those programs

    • Staff confirmed that Nora Abusitta will be joining the ALAC session and can address what her department has been doing with regard to this recommendation 

Input from Social Media Working Group: 

  • Input from Murray McKercher: 
    • Encourage public campaigns on using the Internet for education, information, creativity and empowerment.

    • Recent discussion indicated this recommendation, while considered a worthy goal is written in too broad terms for consideration by ICANN's board.

    • While not a member of the Thematic Group 3, I believe the sentiment of this recommendation may have evolved from a need for ICANN to use the internet more wisely for its own needs for public education, and outreach for the role it plays in he Internet Ecosystem.


 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
23The roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be expanded. The ICANN website should provide a clear and simple way for the public to make complaints.Contractual Compliance, ICANN Board, Chris LaHatteTG4
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability
  • Social Media 

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details 

The enhancements to ICANN Ombudsman’s role and function have been the subject of significant discussion throughout enhancing ICANN accountability process. It is currently being examined in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 within a SubGroup. At-large Members have not only actively participated in the SubGroup, some has also assumed the Rapporteur position in leading the work and shepherding the processes.

Once the community’s recommendations on an updated scope and nature of the ICANN Ombudsman’s role have been issued and considered by the Board, ICANN will put out a Call for Expressions of Interest, and conduct a global search for the next Ombudsman. Pending the conclusion of the community work, Herb Waye has assumed the role of Ombudsman starting on 28 July 2016.

Furthermore, At-Large Community members took the initiative to contact former Ombudsman Chris LaHatte and ICANN’s Digital Engagement team, and offered a number of suggestions to improve Ombudsman’s blog and social media channels. ICANN recently revamped the Ombudsman’s microsite, incorporating clear messaging on the role of Ombudsman (e.g. infographic of the ICANN Expected Stands of Behavior) and simple instruction on how to make complaints. Herb Waye has also maintained an active presence on Twitter and Facebook, making himself accessible to the ICANN community.

Next Step 

At-Large will continue engaging in the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 to help shape the roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Seasoned At-Large leaders will encourage more At-Large members to participate proactively and make greater influence.

 


Actions: 

  • Future Challenges WG to follow up on the expansion of the roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
  • Social Media WG to provide recommendations for community members to easily make complaints to the Ombudsman via the At-Large website
  • Glenn McKnight and Murray McKercher to look at the Ombudsman's social media channels, critique whether they have been used effectively, and provide suggestions 
  • Holly Raiche to explain that this means: The roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be expanded

Notes: 


    • This rec can link to the work in CCWG-Accountability WS2, which may touch on the roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman 

    • The function of ombudsman will be fully reviewed in WS2 

    • We encourage At-Large members to participate in WS2

Input from Social Media Working Group: 

  • Need to promote and interact with Ombudsman's website and social media channels
  • Possibly tweet / post the public-facing report that Ombudsman developed after each ICANN meeting

    • SMWG to monitor the Ombudsman's social media channels and interact with his content 

In interview with Chris LaHatte on the Atlas ll recommendation Item 23 & 24 

Both the areas of the Ombudsman and Contractual Compliance should report regularly on the complaints they received, resolved, pending resolution and actions taken to address issues raised by unresolved complaints
Action
In interview with Chris LaHatte on the Atlas ll recommendation
In  conversation with Chris  he  reiterated that due to the confidentiality of his office its very problematic to report on statistics and details on complaints since the privacy issues is paramount. His normally reporting is to the board and the issue of providing the community with statistics on number of filings, number of resolutions and more needs clarification.
Item One  Blog
As to Ombudsman's  social  media  sties. ie.  blog, Facebook and Twitter  feed  
One  Blog- Word Press omblog.icann.org‏ 
The blog is once a month posting 
25 posts
Analysis
Missing analytic of volume of traffic and where the visitors are coming
Lack of  value added content or  relevance
Recommendations
  • Change the Wordpress  ( Blog)  template to use  proper  widgets to integrate  TWITTER, FACEBOOK  FLICKR and other feeds to the site
  • Provide  public user feedback
  • Needs less text and more pictures and videos
  • Need update on actual functions of the office
  • FAQ

Item Two Twitter

chrislahatte

Analysis

Followers   310
Tweets  512 
Retweets  unknown  and need to know
Recommendations
Integration of Twitter to automatically go  to blog and Facebook 
Conclusion 
I think some of the content  is  restricted due to privacy but perhaps graphical  presentation of  resolutions  would  help people understand the role of the office.  
He will be meeting with Laura B of ICANN on revamping his Blog and he to share our recommendations into the integration
Glenn McKnight

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
24Both the areas of the Ombudsman and Contractual Compliance should report regularly on the complaints they received, resolved, pending resolution and actions taken to address issues raised by unresolved complaints.Contractual Compliance, ICANN Board, Chris LaHatteTG4
  • Social Media

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details 

The At-Large Community is keen on holding ICANN’s Contractual Compliance department accountable by pushing for greater transparency and openness in reporting its activities. At-Large held many constructive discussions with Senior Staff from the department during ICANN meetings and teleconferences on those issues. These efforts have resulted in the department’s significant improvements in providing clear and consistent communication on its activities. Its revamped section on icann.org not only includes clear messaging, infographics, and videos that explain what they do and how to make complaints. It also publishes and regularly updates annual, quarterly, monthly, and audit reports, as well as detailed metrics on compliance and enforcement for a rolling 13 month period.  

Due to the sensitive nature of the complaints that the ICANN Ombudsman receives and the legal limits on what can be reported on, the At-Large Community is satisfied with the current level of communications from the Ombudsman about his activities to the general public. Nevertheless, At-Large members took the initiative to contact former Ombudsman Chris LaHatte and ICANN’s Digital Engagement team, and offered a number of suggestions to improve the Ombudsman’s blog and social media channels. ICANN recently revamped the Ombudsman’s microsite, incorporating clear messaging on the role of Ombudsman (e.g. infographic of the ICANN Expected Stands of Behavior) and simple instruction on how to make complaints. The newly appointed Ombudsman Herb Waye has also maintained an active presence on Twitter and Facebook, making himself accessible to the ICANN community.

In addition, At-Large members have been actively leading and/or participating in the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Ombudsman SubGroup. Recommendations proposed by the SubGroup would enhance the scope and nature of the ICANN Ombudsman’s role, and may impact the mechanism for the Ombudsman to report on complaints.

Next Step  

The At-Large Community will maintain a watching brief on Contractual Compliance performance metrics and reports, as well as the communication channels of the Ombudsman, ensuring the ongoing nature and the continuous improvements of these types of reporting for transparency purposes.

 


Notes: 

  • If the reports done by Contractual Compliance are open to public, we will consider tweeting/posting them

    • ALAC is satisfied with the progress made by Ombudsman in reporting their work 

    • Due to the confidentiality of his office, it is sensitive to post 'unresolved complaints'. There is limitation in what SMWG can do. Nonetheless, At-Large can interact with his social media content to promote his work. 


In interview with Chris LaHatte on the Atlas ll recommendation Item 23 & 24 

Both the areas of the Ombudsman and Contractual Compliance should report regularly on the complaints they received, resolved, pending resolution and actions taken to address issues raised by unresolved complaints
Action
In interview with Chris LaHatte on the Atlas ll recommendation
In  conversation with Chris  he  reiterated that due to the confidentiality of his office its very problematic to report on statistics and details on complaints since the privacy issues is paramount. His normally reporting is to the board and the issue of providing the community with statistics on number of filings, number of resolutions and more needs clarification.
Item One  Blog
As to Ombudsman's  social  media  sties. ie.  blog, Facebook and Twitter  feed  
One  Blog- Word Press omblog.icann.org‏ 
The blog is once a month posting 
25 posts
Analysis
Missing analytic of volume of traffic and where the visitors are coming
Lack of  value added content or  relevance
Recommendations
  • Change the Wordpress  ( Blog)  template to use  proper  widgets to integrate  TWITTER, FACEBOOK  FLICKR and other feeds to the site
  • Provide  public user feedback
  • Needs less text and more pictures and videos
  • Need update on actual functions of the office
  • FAQ

Item Two Twitter

chrislahatte

Analysis

Followers   310
Tweets  512 
Retweets  unknown  and need to know
Recommendations
Integration of Twitter to automatically go  to blog and Facebook 
Conclusion 
I think some of the content  is  restricted due to privacy but perhaps graphical  presentation of  resolutions  would  help people understand the role of the office.  
He will be meeting with Laura B of ICANN on revamping his Blog and he to share our recommendations into the integration
Glenn McKnight

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
25To enhance ICANN's community effort on building a culture of Transparency and Accountability, as called for in the recommendations of ATRT2, oversight of the Board's decisions now requires an effective mechanism of checks and balances, capable of providing true multi-stakeholder oversight and effective remedies.ICANN Board; ICANN SO and AcsTG4
  • IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability

COMPLETE

Summary

Implementation Details 

At-Large Community members actively contributed to and effectively influenced the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, which produced a set of enhancements to ICANN's accountability mechanisms that must be in place within the time frame of the IANA stewardship transition. Establishing an Empowered Community (EC), which would make the ICANN Board more accountable, is one of the final recommendations. Specifically, the EC will have the ability to 1) appoint and remove Board members and to recall the entire ICANN Board, 2) exercise oversight with respect to key ICANN Board decisions, and 3) approve amendments to ICANN’s “fundamental bylaws”. These mechanisms of checks and balances would provide a true multi-stakeholder oversight within ICANN. The Work Stream 1 proposal has been approved by the ICANN community and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The implementation of the recommendations is underway, and the ALAC is formal participant in the EC.

Next Step 

The ALAC, in consultation with the broader At-Large Community, will fully exercise its rights and powers within EC to hold ICANN Board accountable and build a culture of transparency and accountability in ICANN.

 


Notes: 

  • Part of the Accountability Process

    • It seems to be addressed in WS1 already 
    • The completion of this recommendation is pending the outcome of WS1

    • This issue will be discussed in the LA F2F meeting of the CCWG-Accountability 
  • :
    • WS1 Proposal has been ratified by the Board and passed to the NTIA for review, pending response from the Congress

    • At-Large community should fully take part and exercise their rights in the Empowered Community (EC) model

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
26Current policy management processes within ICANN are insufficient. ICANN must implement  a workable Policy Management Process System, available for use across the SO/ACs, in order to:
• enhance Knowledge Management,
• improve the effectiveness of all ICANN volunteer communities,
• improve cross-community policy-specific activity,
• enhance policy development metrics,
• facilitate multilingual engagement,
• create a taxonomy of policy categories,
• provide policy development history as an aid for newcomers.
ICANN Policy Staff; ICANN BoardTG5
  • Social Media
  • Technology Taskforce
  • Capacity Building

IN PROGRESS

Summary

Implementation Details 

Progress has been made incrementally to address parts of the recommendation, especially as reflected in the At-Large website revamp.

Regarding taxonomy development, the new At-Large website has implemented a taxonomy of 18 policy topics to automatically tag, organize, enable the search, and improve the navigation of ALAC policy advice statements and other At-Large documents. This taxonomy list expands on the taxonomy used to categorize ICANN public comment proceedings. The GAC has referenced the At-Large taxonomy and adopted a similar list to categorize the GAC Advice in their new website, which is under construction. Furthermore, ICANN has hired a new library and information sciences specialist to review all types of documentation within ICANN and develop a harmonized taxonomy strategy conducive to the document management efforts of all SOs/ACs.

To aid newcomers in ICANN’s policy activities, the new At-Large website has dedicated topic detail pages (example) that explain the history and background of 18 policy issues, their relevance to end users, contributions from At-Large to those issues, and ways to get involved. Those pages also automatically curate ALAC advice in the chronological order, as well as news and further learning resources. Specifically, to help newcomers take part in ICANN public comment, the At-Large website is integrated with the public comment page on icann.org and automatically pulls in new proceedings (example). This function eliminates the manual work from ICANN Staff to publicize these proceedings among At-Large members. Furthermore, visitors can track deadlines and development status of an ALAC advice and know when to provide input. There are also information pages that explain the ALAC procedure to develop advice. Lastly, the website has a responsive design so that users can review and search policy work via mobile devices.

The various improvements of the public comment page on icann.org fulfill some of the requirements in this recommendation. An user can click on the ‘Follow Update’ button to track changes to a public comment proceeding and get notifications. To facilitate multilingual engagement, more and more public comment materials have become available in 6 UN languages and Portuguese in a timely manner. The new Upcoming Public Comment Proceedings section is helpful for early engagement planning. The public comment page on icann.org will soon go through an overhaul to become more user friendly.

To improve the cross community policy activities, the ICANN IT department, Productive Team, and the Policy Development Support team have been coordinating with the ICANN Community to develop and test out working group membership management tools. As a result of this effort, the Global Enrollment Portal will soon be launched to facilitate the signup process of working groups across SOs/ACs.  

It still remains a challenge to identify the ultimate Policy Management Process System that meets all the requirements in the recommendation. To search for such system or tool, the At-Large Technology Taskforce invited LANIC representatives to present their customized web tools that support policy development. More testing of tools are being planned, including the eXo Platform.

Next Step 

The At-Large Community will continue collaborating with relevant ICANN Staff departments in the search for and development of the Policy Management Process System. ICANN Staff are encouraged to actively reach out to At-Large to solicit input on existing projects and efforts that tackle the recommendation requirements.  

 


Actions:  

  • Chairs of these 3 WGs (Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Leon Sanchez, Glenn McKnight, Judith Hellerstein) to discuss how to tackle this task
  • Capacity Building Working Group to work with Social Media Working Group & Technology Taskforce to assess the knowledge management and the policy development system

  • ALAC to follow-up depending on the status update on the SOs/ACs Chairs & ICANN Leadership Meeting on Friday 6 Feb 2015 
  • Social Media WG to help generate the taxonomy of the policy categories and make sure the taxonomy are more accessible to newcomers/curious outsiders
  • ICANN Board to help make the policy development process easily sharable via social media

    • After the ICANN 54 meeting, SMWG to hold a call and review the taxonomy used on the new At-Large website and help review and revise the topic/organization tags on statements and news articles 

    • Ariel Liang to circulate the taxonomy list on the SMWG mailing list 
  • :
    • Mark Segall to explore eXo platform and report back to TTF in terms of testing results

Notes: 

  • A project that overhauls ICANN’s information management system
  • The Technology Taskforce Chair is following up with relevant ICANN Staff 
    • Technology Taskforce has discussed the tool Kavi with ICANN IT, as Kavi was tried out in GNSO. ICANN IT is unlikely to continue promoting or implementing Kavi as it does not appear to sustain the needs of GNSO (e.g. not mobile friendly, do not support multilingual work). Nonetheless, the discussion on Kavi is still useful for At-Large to understand the user profile of policy management process tools and to guide At-Large on understanding what users want/don't want. 

    • Technology Taskforce has recommended a few other solutions to IT that can be considered as alternative tools, and will explore other tools in the future. 

    • Knowledge management is still a challenge in the community. Keeping track of action items and what is happening in the Working Group is difficult.  
    • Confluence has capability to include consolidated task lists for certain wiki parent pages and their respective child pages. 
    • To keep a concise summary / table of hot topics and key activities in working groups may help address knowledge management issue 
    • Staff-created weekly policy update (that includes the activities and topics in the working groups) can serve as a template for such summary/table - explore potential to publish them on the new At-Large website? 
    • Need to build an one-stop shop of working group/RALO/liaison reports: https://community.icann.org/x/XwCB 

Input from Social Media: 

  • : SMWG to give feedback on the taxonomy used on the new At-Large website (tagging of news articles and policy advice Statements). 
  • : TTF has tested an open source software *** (Dev to provide the link)

Input from Technology Taskforce: 

  • The At-Large Website Redesign has been completed - part of the website design attempts to provide a policy background on policy issues as well as to create a taxonomy of policy categories and highlight policy metrics. The new website can be viewed at https://atlarge.icann.org/. The website redesign effort has significantly reduced the manual work in publicizing public comment work in At-Large, and this has been demonstrated during ICANN 53. 
  • The TTF will be reviewing the Policy Development Processes at the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to see what could be adapted for At-Large Policy Development; conference call will likely happen in the end of September 2015. 
  • Suggested Implementation Strategy

    • Assemble cross sectoral technology team to determine the full scope of the project 
    • Allocate adequate budget for completion
    • Create realistic timelines
    • Roll out a beta test with assigned volunteers in each sector to test and provide feedback 
    • Need to provide a recommendation of best practices

  • :

    • TTF will investigate eXo Platform: https://www.exoplatform.com/. It can create different work rooms to facilitate policy discussions and communications, etc. Learn more about eXo here: 

    • Comment from Carlton Samuels: what we need is a competent librarian to do the curating.  THis morning for example there was a call on the Subsequent Procedures WG for output from all communities that pronounced on the new GTLD process.
    • A librarian has been hired in ICANN to look into issues mentioned in the recommendation. So far the librarian has been working on the taxonomy and search strategy with the language service team. 
  • :

What do we want in a Policy Management Process System?

  1. To quickly find historical information on a policy issue
    For example, find policy history on “new gTLDs” and get a report in chronological order.
    Such searches could be further refined (e.g show history in past 4 years) or show the submissions made by a particular AC/SO on a policy issue. Such searches could be visualized using a timeline (e.g http://codyhouse.co/gem/vertical-timeline/). A system would have the policy history stored in a manner to allow for such queries.
  2. To subscribe to policy updates/notifications by interest
    For a person who has a keen interest in certain policy issues (e.g IDNs), persons should be able to subscribe to receive updates on specific policy issues with links to where the discussions are happening for that AC/SO.

    This is where a taxonomy of policy categories to be defined for past, current and future/upcoming policies. Furthermore, a policy system could track past user interactions, so that if a person commented on a particular policy issue (e.g WHOIS), they could be notified of new, related policy issues for their review.

  3. Track deadlines for responding to policy comments
    With multiple policy comment periods happening simultaneously at different stages, a system should update a calendar or other system for the AC/SO to track and manage deadlines.

  4. The ability to read policy issues and updates in your language
    Comment Periods on Policies posted for review are posted in English with translated policy  documents being uploaded at a later time. Persons should be able to subscribe to notifications when policies are available in their language to review.

  5. Having the policy review process more accessible to mobile users.
    With more and more users using mobile devices, the policy review process should be made accessible to such users to engage in the policy process.

  6. Reduce the manual duplication to disseminate information.
    AC/SOs expend a lot of effort to manually copying and pasting text in order to disseminate policy information to the communities and to the wider public (wiki pages, emails, sharing on social media). A system should offer sharing mechanisms so that persons wanting to get the word out can do so more easily.

  7. What do you want in a Policy Management Process System?

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
27The Board must implement ATRT2 Recommendation 9.1, regarding Formal Advice from Advisory Committees.ICANN BoardTG5
  • ALAC

COMPLETE 

Summary

Implementation Details 

The implementation of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 proposal is underway and the ICANN Bylaws have been amended accordingly. The new ICANN Bylaws (adopted by ICANN Board on 27 May 2016) has incorporated the ATRT2 Recommendation 9.1. Specifically, Section 12.3 states:

Each Advisory Committee shall determine its own rules of procedure and quorum requirements; provided that each Advisory Committee shall ensure that the advice provided to the Board by such Advisory Committee is communicated in a clear and unambiguous written statement, including the rationale for such advice. The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so. 

In the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, At-Large Community appointees not only actively participated, but also often held Chair or Vice Chair positions in leading the work, shepherding the processes, and influencing the outcome. In addition, At-Large members diligently followed up on the incorporation of ATRT2 Recommendation 9.1 via ICANN channels beyond the CCWG-Accountability, such as during meetings with the ICANN Board.

Evidence suggests that the ICANN Board already started to develop mechanisms to timely communicate Board actions in response to advice from Advisory Committees. For example, after the ALAC submitted the Proposal for Multi-Year Planning of At-Large RALO Face-to-Face Meeting in late April 2016, ICANN Finance and members of the ICANN Board responded by holding teleconference and providing detailed written feedback in May 2016. With approval from the ICANN Board, ICANN Finance adopted the recommendations in the Proposal in early June 2016.

Next Step 

At-Large will remain a watching brief on the implementation of Section 12.3 in the new ICANN Bylaws and provide feedback for potential improvements of the Board response mechanism.


Actions: 

  • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to ask the Board Chairman re the implementation of Rec 27; Olivier Crepin-Leblond will ask ALAC Chair's permission first. 
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to check whether the ATRT rec 9.1 is incorporated in the new ICANN bylaws
      YES it is:

      Section 12.3.
       
      PROCEDURES
       
      Each Advisory Committee shall determine its own rules of procedure and quorum requirements; provided that each Advisory Committee shall ensure that the advice provided to the Board by such Advisory Committee is communicated in a clear and unambiguous written statement, including the rationale for such advice.
       
      The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.

    • Heidi Ullrich to forward the question to Board Support, Rinalia Abdul Rahim and possibly Steve Crocker to address this during ICANN56

Notes: 

  • 9.1. ICANN Bylaws Article XI should be amended to include the following language to mandate Board Response to Advisory Committee Formal Advice: “The ICANN Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees, explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.”
  • Board has accepted all the recommendations and asked for implementation, but the ALAC may bring this up with the Board if we don't hear updates by ICANN 52 Singapore
  • :
    • The Board has approved the ATRT2 recommendations a year ago or earlier and now the recommendations should have been implemented. Nonetheless, we have not heard any update re the implementation
    • Sebastien Bachollet recommended that it may be worthwhile to follow up with CCWG-Accountability and CWG-IANA on this recommendation. In particular, CCWG-Accountability will work on the bylaw change related matters, so this recommendation can be taken care of by the CCWG. The CCWG's work with regard to community empowerment mechanism and the extent of bylaw change is an ongoing process 
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond points out that it is uncertain whether the outcome from the CCWG-Accountability will trump the ATRT2 recommendations. Another concern with the CCWG-Accountability work is that it seems to strengthen the SOs and weakens the ACs, but it may just be an speculation; one worrisome scenario would be that the advice from advisory committee will have less impact and the Board will not treat the advice from advisory committees as formal advice. 


 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
35The ICANN Board should hold a minimum of one conference call with the At-Large Community in between ICANN Public Meetings.ALAC; ICANN BoardTG5
  • ALAC

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

There has been significant increase of communications between the ALAC and the ICANN Board since the conclusion of the 2nd At-Large Summit. Rinalia Abdul Rahim, the At-Large Community selected Board Director, attended each ALAC teleconference in between ICANN meetings and provided updates on Board activities as a standing agenda item. She also frequently provided these updates via the ALAC mailing lists. Via teleconferences and mailing list correspondence, the ALAC also raised issues for Rinalia to communicate back to the Board and vice versa. Examples include the coordination between the ALAC and the ICANN Board on the development and evaluation of the Proposal for Multi-Year Planning of At-Large RALO Face-to-Face Meetings. Besides the ALAC teleconferences, Rinalia recently started to join EURALO monthly teleconferences and other At-Large calls. The ALAC has agreed that there is no need to meet with the full ICANN Board in between ICANN meetings and the communications with the Board via Rinalia has been effective.  

Furthermore, during ICANN56, a number of ICANN Board Directors actively participated in several At-Large sessions, and this increased level of engagement was greatly appreciated by At-Large members.

Next Step

At-Large will continue the communication with the ICANN Board via Rianlia in between ICANN meetings and maintain the smooth coordination with Rinalia. The ALAC will invite Steve Crocker, the Board Chairman, to attend its teleconferences when appropriate.

 


Actions: 

  •  Olivier Crepin-Leblond to ask a subset of the Board to hold a conference call with the ALAC in between ICANN meetings; Olivier Crepin-Leblond will ask ALAC Chair's permission first. 

    • ALT(Olivier Crepin-Leblond) to follow up with Steve Crocker on this rec during Friday  ALT meeting 

Notes: 

  • Enhance communications between the Board and the At-Large community 

    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond already spoke with Steve Crocker about this recommendation. He was informed that the Board has many meetings in between ICANN meetings and it won't be realistically feasible or beneficial for the ALAC to meet with the ICANN Board in between meetings. However, Steve Crocker is open to meet with the ALAC on his own in between meetings. 

 

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
40ICANN should offer a process similar to the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP), but applicable to short lead-time budget requests not related to travel.ICANN Board; ICANN StaffTG5
  • Outreach & Engagement
  • Finance & Budget

IN PROGRESS

Summary

Implementation Details

Starting from FY17, members of the Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) have access to a discretionary fund of $10,000 USD -- managed by the regional teams of ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Department -- to organize local outreach and engagement activities about ICANN policy issues. Those activities include presentations and brown bag lunches held by professional speakers at a minimum cost. Each RALO can receive up to $2,000USD from the GSE and use it to cover travel, meals, promotions, and other expenses related to the events. For complete transparency and proper oversight, the regional GSE teams review RALOs’ budget requests through a defined process.

In addition, the At-Large Community has also benefited from the additional budget from ICANN’s Communications Department to support short lead-time, ad-hoc requests related to communications. This fund has been used to produce RALO brochures, business cards, USBs, and other promotional items for At-Large’s outreach activities.

Next Step

The ALAC will work with the GSE and Communications Department to clarify and institutionalize the budget request processes for their discretionary funds, facilitating RALO members’ applications for those funds. The ALAC will also collaborate with ICANN regional hub offices and make sure promotional items of the At-Large Community are sufficiently stocked in those offices and can be distributed in regional events in a timely manner.

 


Actions: 

  • Finance & Budget Sub-Committee to check what would be allowed/not allowed re promotional items; if there's anything that will be refused, we will bring this up with the Board
    • ATLAS IT and Outreach & Engagement Sub-Committee members to review the draft ICANN's Civil Society Engagement proposal (At-Large ICANN Civil Society Engagement in Fiscal Year 2016 Workspace) and to discuss whether this proposal is in line with the recommendation. The groups will report back their review in the ATLAS IT meeting on Sep. 
    • Heidi Ullrich to find out how GSE North America's team has conducted outreach activities in Toronto without notifying NARALO; communications gap like this needs to be avoided in the future. 
    • Judith Hellerstein to discuss her thoughts on the ICANN Civil Society Engagement Plan in the Outreach & Engagement SC meeting. 
    • Outreach & Engagement SC will figure out how At-Large can coordinate with the GSE on local outreach & engagement efforts and guide the creation of appropriate events
    • Finance & Budget SC will review the potential short-lead time funding requests of outreach & engagement events

    • During ICANN 54, the ALAC to follow up with Fadi Chehade re the $10,000 contingency fund 


Notes: 

  • Communications budget is available in FY15
  • ALAC/At-Large to request a fund for promotional items for engagement and outreach (could be within FY16 AC/SO Requests)
    • There has been some degree of follow-up re this recommendation. During the ICANN 53 ALAC-Board meeting, ICANN CEO proposed a special funding (e.g. 10,000 USD) seemingly to be used to assist community members for visa related matters. While it does not seem to have explicit follow-up re this proposal, some At-Large members were provided funding to obtain visa for ICANN 54. This may indicate that the ICANN Board is receptive to short-lead funding request and the ALAC should be encouraged to advance this recommendation with the Board. 
    • This recommendation is linked to recommendation #21: https://community.icann.org/x/TZZCAw
    • Challenge for CROPP is that it is only used for community members to participate in existing events; it cannot be used to fund or organize events. The only way to fund or organize event is to apply for a special budget request and let the Finance and Budget Sub-Committee decide whether it is viable. FBSC usually reviews the event applications in Jan or Feb. The events have to be really well planned out, especially with good budget estimates, otherwise the applications will be rejected. It is very hard to plan some event that is so far out at the beginning of the year. 
    • At-Large should have the ability to apply for ICANN funding for members to organize events that will happen in a shorter period of time (e.g. 3-month time, 6-moth time). As such, the application for funding will be more well thought out. This funding should be separate from CROPP's funding. 
    • This funding should also cover community-initiated education / capacity building events/activities that are not related to travel. The funding will mainly cover venue, refreshment, and other spending to attract people to attend the events. 
    • LACRALO's proposal can serve as an example for such funding (https://community.icann.org/x/Aa7hAghttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1lXtoi9VNuaR0mA2lli9IAAAMgQHa6wOGeVKbirT_-a8/edit
    • The draft ICANN Civil Society Engagement Plan (https://community.icann.org/x/-5FCAw) may also relate to this recommendation. It can create collaboration opportunities between local ALSes, GSE, NPOC, NCUC, and NCSG. For example, the events hosted by GSE and other constituencies may already have venue and refreshments covered, or provide the funding for workshops and panels that ALSes ask for, so that local ALSes can take advantage of the existing resources and avoid reinventing the wheel. 
    • Nonetheless, At-Large members like Sebastien Bachollet disagrees that the proposal is pointing ICANN in the right direction, as civil society is only a subset of the user community. He emphasized that ICANN is not organized via civil society and shouldn't over emphasize the civil society concept. At-Large is the voice of billions of end users, much greater than the civil society; overemphasizing this concept may make At-Large end up like ISOC chapters, etc. All ICANN Staff need to make an effort to meet local ALSes when they are traveling for outreach and engagement related work. Judith Hellerstein thinks that At-Large's work is more in line with NPOC. 

    • There hasn't been much going on in FBSC. FBSC will hold call soon but schedule is unknown.  
    • Dev Anand Teelucksingh believes that ICANN should provide funding for short-lead budget requests, but Alan Greenberg disagrees with this type of funding. Alan thinks that ICANN won't be very acceptive to short-lead budget requests on unspecified items, and specific requests need to be made in order to get funding. 
    • There is a communications fund bucket for the community to use at our discretion. We need to come up with the specific requests to use that fund. 
    • During the ICANN 53 Board Meeting, Fadi Chehade proposed a $10,000 contingency fund seemingly allocated for visa related matters. Follow-up work needs to be done, as we are unaware or uncertain who have the money, whether it can only cover visa issue, etc. This proposal seems to have made an impact according to Heidi Ullrich, as some community member was able to funded by ICANN to obtain visa. Nevertheless, clarification of Fadi's proposal is needed. 

 

No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
41The ALAC should work with the ICANN Board in seeking additional sources of funding for At-Large activities.ALAC; ICANN BoardTG5
  • Finance and Budget

IN PROGRESS

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has successfully secured external fundings for its outreach and engagement events and activities, including the Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) showcases held during ICANN public meetings and the At-Large Summits. Past sponsors include organizations that have established the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with RALOs (e.g. ARIN, DotAsia), as well as commercial organizations such as Verisign, Public Interest Registry, Affilias, and Google.

Within ICANN, there has been a continued effort to make additional funding available to support At-Large’s endeavors. ICANN has fulfilled many requests from At-Large members via the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP), financing their travels to regional Internet Governance events. The At-Large Community has also request additional funding through ICANN’s fiscal year special budget request process and applied the resources to advance end user interests. Over the years, the approval rate of those special budget requests has steadily increased. Furthermore, starting from FY17, ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Department and Communications Department have allocated discretionary funds to assist RALOs to organize local events and produce promotional materials in a short-lead time. In June 2016, ICANN Finance Department has adopted the At-Large proposal to integrate the At-Large multiyear schedule of General Assemblies and Summits into ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan.

These additional sources of funding have been extremely beneficial to advance the mission of the At-Large Community, the only group within ICANN consisted of unpaid volunteers with no self-interests. They help reduce the barriers to such continued participation and engagement.  

Next Step

The ALAC Subcommittee on Finance and Budget will establish a taskforce to tackle fundraising and sponsor issues. Specifically, the taskforce will work with ICANN Staff to build and maintain a database that contains past sponsors’ details and contributions. They will also develop a mechanism to build, maintain, and strengthen At-Large Community’s relationship with sponsors for long-term collaboration. During ICANN57, the ALAC will discuss with the GSE and seek their advice and assistance in this endeavor.


Actions: 

  • : 
    • Members in the At-Large New Meeting Strategy Working Group to keep the ATLAS II IT updated with the discussion about Meeting B
    • In Dublin, ALAC to discuss this recommendation with the GSE (Sally Costerton and the Regional VPs), the meeting team (Nick Tomasso), and Nora Abusitta (DRPD). 
    • ATLAS II IT to ask Regional VPs to provide brief summaries of activities currently taking place in their respective regions that involve the RALOs, as well as their further engagement plans with the ALSes. Regional VPs to report on this during ICANN 54 Dublin. The Regional VPs to also discuss the Civil Society Engagement Overview and Forward Plan with the ALAC and explain the collaboration opportunities (e.g. regional/local resources and Regional VPs' own budget may potentially provide fundings for outreach activities). 

    • ALAC to follow up with GSE to seek answer to this question – how possible is it for GSE to help the ALAC raise additional sources of funding?
  • :
    • At the forthcoming meeting in Hyderabad, the ALAC to ask GSE:
      • about raising external funds and getting sponsors?

    • The ALAC to decide if an At-Large taskforce be established to tackle sponsorship issues, including the development of the sponsor database. This taskforce could bring all RALO leaderships together to give them tools to help them with raising sponsorship for F2F GAs, showcases, etc.


Notes: 

  • FBSC engage with various parties that can help raise sponsorship in the future

    • At-Large New Meeting Strategy Working Group (LAC sub-group) has been discussing outreach strategy for Meeting B
      • The Group has raised issues re funding for outreach programs 
      • While the original idea was to contain all the activities within the ICANN meeting, the Working Group has convinced ICANN Staff to also include external outreach activities 
      • At-Large is encouraged to collaborate with ICANN staff on various ICANN initiated outreach programs including Next Gen
      • Check the details of this discussion via the transcript/recording of the Working Group meeting on https://community.icann.org/x/qYxYAw
    • There seems to be some eagerness from Regional VPs to work with the ALAC and RALOs on regional engagements activities (e.g. newsletters, webinars, LAC strategy, APRALO-APAC Hub); some At-Large members are deeply involved in those activities. 
  • :
    • FBSC has been looking into third party sponsorships, but there seems to be no real understanding whether At-Large should ask for such external funding 
    • External funding seems to be required for meetings/outreach activities outside the ICANN meeting
  •  (update from the GSE, slides)
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond: We’re talking here about sponsorship, et cetera, for additional activities outside. So the question here is how possible is it for GSE to help the ALAC raise additional sources of funding?

    • This recommendation concerns with additional sources of fundings external to ICANN.
    • Some At-Large members work with RIRs and other organizations to support their activities 

 

 No.RecommendationRecipientThematic Group SourceAssigneesStatus
42ICANN should enable annual face-to-face RALO assemblies, either at ICANN regional offices or in concert with regional events.ALAC; ICANN BoardTG5
  • Finance and Budget
  • ALS Criteria & Expectations 
  • RALO Chairs

COMPLETED

Summary

Implementation Details

The At-Large Community has made ICANN recognizes the fundamental importance of the representation and participation of users in ICANN’s multistakeholder model. The At-Large Community has also made ICANN recognizes that the existing structures of the At-Large organization depend for their effectiveness on face-to-face meetings, and that based on past experience, the value resulting from such face-to-face meetings has received broad consensus from the community.

In April 2016, the ALAC submitted to the ICANN Board and ICANN Finance department the Proposal for Multi-Year Planning of At-Large RALO Face-to-Face Meetings. In the Proposal, the ALAC recommends ICANN to integrate a five-year cycle of Regional At-Large Organization General Assemblies and At-Large Summits into ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan, relieving the burden from At-Large of making special budget requests every year for these face-to-face meetings. This will improve the predictability of activities and costs for the ICANN organization and allow better planning and increased efficiency in the organization of such meetings.

In June 2016, ICANN Finance department has adopted the recommendation in the Proposal. In addition, the existing special budget requests for FY17 related to the General Assemblies of NARALO and AFRALO, which will be held in concert with regional events, have been approved. 

Next Step

The ALAC Chair, ALAC Subcommittee on Finance and Budget, and the At-Large Selected ICANN Board Director will maintain a watching brief on the integration of At-Large multiyear schedule of General Assemblies and Summits into ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan.


Actions: 

  • ALAC to give the Board a heads-up and push the Board to agree with the AFRALO and EURALO GA this year
  • :
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to develop a timeline for the General Assemblies (how many GAs per year and where the GAs should take place) and ATLAS III prior to ICANN 54. This timeline, once approved by the ALAC and the Finance & Budget SC, should be shared with Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Steve Crocker, and Board Finance Committee and also be discussed with the Board in Dublin. 

    • Cheryl Langdon-Orr to provide Olivier Crepin-Leblond the dates and details of the 2 APRALO GA in the 'prehistorical' days in At-Large (prior to Mexico) 
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to send the spreadsheet to the ALAC Finance & Budget Sub-Committee and the ALAC to review before passing on to the ICANN Board 

    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to include a preamble recognizing that there are other meetings/gatherings of ALSes facilitated/funded by ICANN before or up until when RALOs formally signed the MoU with ICANN (prior to ICANN 34 Mexico); these meetings/gatherings include 1-2 APRALO meetings  
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond to give a heads up to Rinalia Abdul Rahim on Sunday before approaching the Board Finance Committee re GA matters. Olivier Crepin-Leblond to send the spreadsheet to Rinalia Abdul Rahim and Cherine Chalaby to start the discussion well before the Board meeting. 
    • Staff to note the LACRALO meeting in Puerto Rico in 2007 on the RALO General Assemblies page. 

Notes: 


    • AFRALO, EURALO, and NARALO made the special FY16 budget request to host General Assemblies, only EURALO's request has been approved for FY16. AFRALO's request has been declined because of a high level meeting for Ministers as well as the Next-Gen program that will take place in Marrakech (the number of grants needed are increased as a result). However, AFRALO and NARALO will be given priority to host GA in FY17.
    • ALAC/At-Large shall continue pushing for more RALO GAs and remind ICANN Finance Dept and the Board Finance & Budget Committee on the rotation of RALO General Assemblies; Rinalia Abdul Rahim has been pushing for more RALO GAs. Especially in light of the new meeting strategy, the ALAC shall come up with proposals that clearly indicate how many GAs should be held and where to host the GAs in the next three years at least, otherwise we may end up with one GA per year, which is unacceptable. 
    • At-Large Funding Roadmap v2.xls
    • Olivier Crepin-Leblond thinks that it is unlikely to hold GA or ATLAS during a B Meeting; Sebastien Bachollet suggests to still keep B Meeting as an option and task ICANN Staff to find out whether it is feasible to have a facility with enough space to hold a GA or ATLAS III. 
    • In 'prehistorical' days, APRALO benefited from ICANN funding and held its first GA during an APNIC (?) meeting in Indonesia (?); it was the founding meeting for APRALO. There was another a small meeting of the APRALO Leadership Team funded by ICANN; that meeting was held in Hong Kong outside ICANN meeting but during a technical meeting dominated by industry players. 
    • RALO GAs: RALO General Assemblies
    • This recommendation needs to be clarified, as it can be interpreted as At-Large wants to hold general assembly for each RALO every year (i.e. 5 GA / year). 
    • Should we add 'on a rotating, multi-year basis' at the end of the sentence to clarify? 
  • :
    • The idea is to present a proposal of RALO General Assemblies and At-Large Summits with geographic rotation. However, there has been different understanding with regard to the frequency of GAs and At-Large Summits, as there is concerns with regard to time for preparation, logistics, and costs. 
    • The idea is to remove the special budget request for general assemblies and incorporate the GAs in ICANN's FY budget. The limitation of ad-hoc request is that the number of GAs won't be consistent through years (e.g. FY16 only has 1 GA approved). However, we cannot be overly ambitious to organize too many GAs (e.g. 3 GAs in one FY) due to limitation from Staff resources. 
  • :
  •  (secretariat meeting - ICANN55):
    • Recommendation will be put on hold until At-Large receives a green light for having the multi-year budget

  •  

 

  • No labels