Page History
In this version (ver 2) of the SWOT, the input :
- The input from WT C has been consolidated and reorganized.
- A numbering system has been added to allow for the easy identification of the individual points.
Note: This is not the version of the SWOT in which WT C members should be adding new data. To add new data, please see version 1 of the SWOT.
A. Strategic planning (related to Rec. 5)
A.S - Strengths | A.W Weaknesses - Weaknesses |
A.O - Opportunities | A.T - Threats |
|
|
|
|
B. Operational planning (related to Rec. 5)
B.S - Strengths | ||||||
\[Now this seems to simply repeat that AL offers local knowledge, which is already in header point\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Olivier: (a) Do the blue additions above solve the issue? (b) Why "for ICANN"?\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Must distinguish this heading from similar heading above; both refer to local knowledge; state how second one here is different than above\] |
1. Grassroots input
2. RALO involvement is an asset
B.S.4 - On-the-ground, workable and well-defined actions
B.S.5 - At-Large uses electronic tools to bring its members' different backgrounds and experiences to bear on planning process
B.W - Weaknesses
B.W.1 - At-Large reacts slowly
B.W.2 - At-Large maturity still not completely achieved
B.W.3 - Translations:
1. Number is limited
2. Delays exist
B.O - Opportunities
B.O.1 - Strengthen maturity of At-Large by improving processes
B.O.2 - Use At-Large as a powerful communication channel
B.O.3 - At-Large operating plan could be a useful step in preparing an accurate budget
B.O.4 - At-Large's abilities and reach could be used to convey ICANN's message locally
B.O.5 - At-Large could incorporate public participation into ICANN's operational planning
B.O.6 - At-Large comments, as result of consensus-based process, should be considered by ICANN Board and staff
B.O.7 - Actions proposed Plans (such as a Second At-Large Summit or RALO GAs) proposed by At-Large should be considered by ICANN \[What kinds of actions? Pt. right above refers to policy advice\] (OCL: others might wish to comment on this.) (OCL: For example, actions like a proposal for a "Second At Large Summit"; "RALO GA"; etc.) Wiki Markup
B.T - Threats
B.T.1 - Lack of means
- funding of operations Wiki Markup \[Unclear. "Means"? Suggestion: Lack of funding \-\- and then state what it risks\]
- staff headcount
- translation services
- Web services
- conference call services
- other daily logistics
- etc.of resources (including operational funding, staff headcount, translation services, Web services, conference-call services, other daily logistical needs, etc.)
B.T.2 - Less operational exposure
(OCL: this is a result from lack of means / possible result: significant reduction in volunteer involvement)Less operational effectiveness and visibility leading to a lack of volunteer interest Wiki Markup \[Could do what? Or this could result from what?\]
B.T.3 - Lack of volunteers would limit operational planning and capabilities
C. Budget (related to Rec. 6)
C.S - Strengths | |||
\[Budgeting requirements?\] | |||
Wiki Markup | |||
---|---|---|---|
\[What committee? ALAC's Subcommittee on Budget and Finance?\] | C.W - Weaknesses | ||
C.O - Opportunities | C.T - Threats |