Board Questions to the ALAC:
- To what degree is your membership actively participating in CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2? What could the Board or ICANN organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion of this work?
- The ALAC may wish to explain to the Board the process how seasoned At-Large members who are deeply engaged in ICANN policy activities regularly brief the wider At-Large Community of the latest development of issues.
- Particularly advise the ICANN Board on At-Large's regular ICANN Evolution WG calls as a continuity of WS1 efforts, especially as the ALAC is a charting organization of the CCWG-Accountability and will be responsible for the WS2 output.
- Build a few statistics on RALO activities (APRALO focus, AFRALO focus, etc.) of updating their members on WS2 activities. e.g. AFRALO monthly meeting has a standing agenda item of WS2 briefing.
- At-Large is aware of other parts of the ICANN community that hold updates/briefings on WS2 activities. E.g. NCSG holds an update every 5-7 weeks with the usual suspects (e.g. leadership people or people who are leading the Subgroup activities of WS2) attending with only 1-2 key areas of interest.
- ALAC's briefings on the WS2 cover all subtopics and reach much wider membership, ensuring that the WS2 output would be satisfactory to the ALAC as a chartering organization.
- Perhaps asking for more support to help end users engage, e.g. ask for translations for all WG outputs, questionnaires, and consultations into different languages.
- What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group?
ALAC Questions to the Board:
Issues to discuss with Board.
1. Meeting format and difficulty in cross-SO/AC participation, with GNSO PDP participation
The last few meetings, coinciding with new meeting strategy, seem to have measurably increased difficulty in scheduling meetings and in particular often does not allow those active in ALAC from participating in other AC/SO activities. As an example, major GNSO PDPs such as gTLD Subsequent Procedures or Next Gen RDS meetings are held in direct opposition to At-Large working sessions. Attendance at Board-Other-AC/SO meetings tends to be impossible.
Has the Board experienced anything similar or received other such comments?
2. Engaging with end-users is a real challenge due to the rather specialized topics ICANN discusses and the complexity and depth of knowledge required. However, there also is a question of what realistic expectations should be. Based on the comments from the At-Large Review, it is unclear if we are ever going to meeting the expectations of some parts of the community (Board, SOs, ACs)
ALAC will present a brief description of what we think is reasonable, and contrast it with some apparent perceptions. The ALAC would appreciate hearing from Board members what they think are reasonable targets.
1 Comment
Alan Greenberg
Final Proposal:
Issues to discuss with Board.
1. Meeting format and difficulty in cross-SO/AC participation, with GNSO PDP participation
The last few meetings, coinciding with new meeting strategy, seem to have measurably increased difficulty in scheduling meetings and in particular often does no allow those active in ALAC from participating in other AC/SO activities. As an example, major GNSO PDPs such as gTLD Subsequent Procedures or Next Gen RDS meetings are held in direct opposition to At-Large working sessions. Attendance at Board-Other-AC/SO meetings tends to be impossible.
Has the Board experienced anything similar or received other such comments?
2. Engaging with end-users is a real challenge due to the rather specialized topics ICANN discusses and the complexity and depth of knowledge required. However, there also is a question of what realistic expectations should be. Based on the comments from the At-Large Review, it is unclear if we are ever going to meeting the expectations of some parts of the community (Board, SOs, ACs)
ALAC will present a brief description of what we think is reasonable, and contrast it with some apparent perceptions. The ALAC would appreciate hearing from Board members what they think are reasonable targets.