ATLAS II Recommendations to the ICANN Board

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; 
• 02 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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) 
    
• 09 Sep 2015:
  • 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.
• 02 Sep 2015: 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. 
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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.
• 18 Oct 2015 (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: 

• 28 Sep 2015 
  • 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 
    
    

Notes:

• Could feed into ICANN accountability process and At-Large work in this process
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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.
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  • 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

Notes: 

• Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA issues WG.
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • 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.
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • 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
    
    
    
    

Actions: 

• 16 Sep 2015: Assignees to modify the wording of this recommendation  
• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to email this recommendation to the IANA-issues mailing list to encourage members to propose modified wording. 
  
  

Notes: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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? 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Members' conflicts of interests should be updated if their status change (with regard to their work and other potential areas of conflict of interests). 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  •  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 

Action: 

• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC mailing list for review. 
  
• 19 Oct 2015: 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.
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Seems to be a fair assessment re previous notes. 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  • 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

     

Actions:

• Staff to provide the Strategy document before LA.
• ALAC to expand on this recommendation
• 02 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Ariel Liang to follow up the GSE team and Heidi Ullrich with regard to the Strategy document 

Notes: 

18 Oct 2015 (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. 

Actions: 

• 02 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
    
• 19 Oct 2015: 
  
  • 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

• 02 Sep 2015: From At-Large side, this recommendation has been completed. Its status depends on the progress on the ICANN Staff side. 

Input from Technology Taskforce: 

• (As per Rec 10) ICANN Language Services provides interpretation for for ALAC/At-Large F2F meetings and ALAC and for some RALO conference calls.
• However, they do not as of yet provide support for people with disabilities and special needs during working groups or conference calls.
• Evaluated Caption First which offers an Adobe Connect plugin for live scribing on two calls (as per Rec 10)
• A special budget request to conduct a pilot program to live caption 6 meetings/calls a month has been submitted to the FBSC which was approved by ICANN.
• The TTF also evaluated “Craptions to Captions”, an open source tool for captioning videos. See Technology Taskforce meeting 2015-01-26
• Also, the TTF looked at Amara, www.amara.org , a subtitle editor that makes it easy to caption and translate videos. Amara also hosts volunteer localization & accessibility communities.
• The TTF notes the progress of machine translation tools such as Skype Translator Preview and the already available Google Translate mobile app. The TTF has reviewed and documented these applications at the Translation Tools wiki page.
• The TTF is working with ICANN IT staff to have a new version of the machine translation tools used for the LACRALO English and Spanish mailing lists. See https://community.icann.org/x/z4VZAg
• Also beginning the process for testing captioning of all videos. Glenn McKnight will be demoing some of these at the next TTF call.
• 23 May 2016 
  
  • Corresponds to Rec 10 

Actions: 

• 22 Sep 2015: Ariel Liang to send this recommendation to the ALAC list for review.

Notes: 

• Could feed in the accountability process
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • Part of the CCWG Accountability work (Stress Test regarding the GAC advice) may be relevant to this recommendation 
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • ATLAS II Recommendation 7 is directly related to this recommendation

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

Actions: 

• The ALAC Ex-Chair (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) to informally get in touch with colleagues on other SOs and ACs about this issue  
• Alan Greenberg and Holly Raiche to be consulted on this matter. Update on https://community.icann.org/x/Ko1lAw

Notes: 

• 02 Sep 2015: 

  • This problem is often found when it comes to the treatment of personal information.

  • Work is currently taking place two-fold:

    1. by ICANN issuing special amendments to its contracts on a case by case basis specifically regarding its data retention waivers:

       • https://community.icann.org/x/M5vhAg

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-10-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-05-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-04-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-04-10-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-27-en

       • https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-24-en

       • etc. Many of these are individual Data Retention Waivers but also a process to change the agreement on a more permanent basis

    2. The ICANN Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability is also looking at the Issue. I would recommend that the work of this working group be examined once it is complete

  • Worth noting that I have asked other SO/AC Chair in the past about this issue (prior to the work taking place above) and there was, at the time, barely any response.

• 09 Sep 2015 
  

  • It is partially completed as the ICANN has done a lot of work with respect to this recommendation, examples as mentioned above. 

  • Part of the CCWG Accountability work (e.g. how the Review Process will be taken into account, role of local/national laws, how to write the bylaw, discussion regard the human rights at the global and national level) is relevant to this recommendation 

• 08 Sep 2016 (feedback from Alan Greenberg)
  

  •  The WS2 Jurisdiction Staff Paper ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jt6Rb5UjzNwd5WXZ0Bt1W5ryiiQ-lB690vPnMZB7pKc/edit #) includes among its points:

  • "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, freedom of expression."

  • So I would say it will certainly be discussed.

Notes: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • Jurisdiction issue is one of the most significant topics in CCWG-Accountability WS2

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

Actions: 

• 02 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 
• 18 Oct 2015 (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.

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
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 06 Jun 2016: 

  • At-Large members (including ALSes, in addition to the At-Large Review WP) should engage in the At-Large review
    
    
    

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 
• 09 Sep 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: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 05 Oct 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 18 Oct 2015 (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
• 28 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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.

• 24 Sep 2015: 
  

  • ICANN has various resources that can potentially become public campaign topics: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/security-terminology-2015-09-16-en 

  • ICANN should leverage existing resources from I* organization and collaborate with them in conducting public campaigns 

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: 

• 05 Oct 2015: 
  
  • This rec can link to the work in CCWG-Accountability WS2, which may touch on the roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman 
• 06 Jun 2016: 
  

  • 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
• 24 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 

Notes: 

• If the reports done by Contractual Compliance are open to public, we will consider tweeting/posting them
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • ALAC is satisfied with the progress made by Ombudsman in reporting their work 
• 24 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 19 Oct 2015: 
  
  • https://features.icann.org/compliance - work of contractual compliance 

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

Notes: 

• Part of the Accountability Process
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • It seems to be addressed in WS1 already 
  • The completion of this recommendation is pending the outcome of WS1
• 22 Sep 2015: 
  
  • This issue will be discussed in the LA F2F meeting of the CCWG-Accountability 
• 06 Jun 2016:
  

  • 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

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 shareable via social media
• 24 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 
• 05 Oct 2015: 
  
  • Ariel Liang to circulate the taxonomy list on the SMWG mailing list 
• 23 May 2016:
  
  • 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 
• 09 Sep 2015: 

  • 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. 
• 05 Oct 2015: 
  
  • 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: 

• 24 Sep 2015: SMWG to give feedback on the taxonomy used on the new At-Large website (tagging of news articles and policy advice Statements). 
• 19 May 2016: 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
• 21 Sep 2015: 
  

  • Reviewed and evaluated LACNIC's customized policy development process and web tools in the teleconference: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Technology+Taskforce+2015-09-21

• 23 May 2016:

  • 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. 
• 12 Sep 2016:
  
  • A team to test the eXo platform has been formed: https://community.icann.org/x/pAC4Aw 

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?

Actions: 

• 02 Sep 2015: Olivier Crepin-Leblond to ask the Board Chairman re the implementation of Rec 27; Olivier Crepin-Leblond will ask ALAC Chair's permission first. 
• 14 Jun 2016: 
  • 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: 

Actions: 

•  02 Sep 2015: 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. 
  
• 19 Oct 2015: 
  
  • ALT(Olivier Crepin-Leblond) to follow up with Steve Crocker on this rec during Friday 23 Oct 2015 ALT meeting 

Notes: 

• Enhance communications between the Board and the At-Large community 
• 19 Oct 2015: 
  
  • 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. 

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
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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
• 30 Sep 2015: 
  
  • During ICANN 54, the ALAC to follow up with Fadi Chehade re the $10,000 contingency fund 
• 14 Jun 2016: 
  
  • Heidi Ullrich / Alan Greenberg / ALAC to discuss this recommendation with ICANN Finance (Xavier) in ICANN56 

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)
• 09 Sep 2015: 
  • 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/Aa7hAg; https://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. 
• 30 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
    
    

Actions: 

• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • 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). 
• 14 Jun 2016: 
  
  • 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?
• 07 Oct 2016:
  • 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
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 11 Sep 2015: 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. 
• 30 Sep 2015:
  • 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
• 18 Oct 2015 (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?
• 14 Jun 2016: 
  
  • 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 

Actions: 

• ALAC to give the Board a heads-up and push the Board to agree with the AFRALO and EURALO GA this year
• 09 Sep 2015:
  
  • 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. 
    
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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 
• 30 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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: 

• 09 Sep 2015: 
  
  • 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. 
• 16 Sep 2015: 
  • 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. 
• 30 Sep 2015: 
  • 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? 
• 24 Nov 2015:
  
  • 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. 
• 21 Jan 2016:
  
  • General Assemblies and Summit Table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11e1U8ZzOoqwUVG-VSVw4COnj5MxrD13tWi15gnMTYlc/edit#gid=2081016939
  • Proposal for multi-year budget planning of ALAC and RALO Face to Face meetings
• 09 Mar 2016 (secretariat meeting - ICANN55):
  
  • Recommendation will be put on hold until At-Large receives a green light for having the multi-year budget
• 30 Apr 2016
  
  • The Proposal for Multi-Year Planning of At-Large RALO Face-to-Face Meetings has been submitted to the public comment on the Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update. ICANN Finance is reviewing the Proposal. 
    
• 12 May 2016 
  
  • Once the Proposal for Multi-Year Planning of At-Large RALO Face-to-Face Meetings is approved by the ICANN Board this recommendation can be marked completed. Board decision will be made in June 2016. 
  • If the Proposal is approved, there will be no need for RALOs to submit special budget requests for GAs; exception is FY16/17.