Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for demonstration purposes and discussion within by the ARIWG

Issue #1

Lead: Jonathan Zuck


Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear.

Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority)
ARIWG comments

(MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups.

Status of improvement effort / staff leadAlready underway, continuous improvement to continue / HU; EE
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation(MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?ICANN Staff in conjunction with ALAC/At-Large Leadership
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Staff up to 0.2 FTEs in Dec 2018 through to Dec 2019
Expected budget implicationsNothing additional beyond already allocated resources to At-Large.

Proposed implementation steps:

  1. Nov 2018 convene analysis and review of issue and status of improvements to date micro-team with staff allocated, penholders for this issue <insert link to wiki page> and ARIWG member volunteers as desired.
  2. Identify the specifics of processes and practices used to date.
  3. Identification of opportunities for process improvement or modification
  4. Development of proposal for reenvisioning any processes and practices to be discussed by ALAC / At-Large and those utilising ALAC advice.
  5. Documentation process renewal proposal as agreed and prioritised developed into a project plan. Noting which milestones are intended to be reached by Dec 2019, and what is to be undertaken under review and continuous improvement planning.
Continuous Improvement(s)
  1. Continue and expand the development of webinars to educate the at-large community on the policy considerations of the ICANN community
  2. Draw a bright line distinction between individual and at-large policy advice
  3. Ensure that at-large representatives to WGs and PDPs are aware of and clear on those distinctions when speaking for the at-large
  4. Reimagine the process of of advice prioritization by
    1. Focusing on the perspective of the typical end user (as defined by activities not specific groups of end users)
    2. Being disciplined NOT to develop advice when there is no unique "end user" perspective to bring to the discussion (like an amicus brief)
    3. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn to make make recommendations to the community on prioritization
    4. Seek feedback from regional leaders on prioritization advice
  5. Reimagine the process of advice/policy development by
    1. Using the CWPG to formulate an initial perspective on a particular ICANN policy area
    2. Use the regional leaders to socialize and receive feedback on that perspective
    3. only THEN identify a pen holder to draft advice from THAT perspective
    4. finally, submit that draft for open comment by the at-large community
  6. Reimagine the participation of non-English speakers in at-large policy/advice development by
    1. Continue to develop "issue briefs" in multiple languages to assist in education of non-English speakers
    2. Employ simultaneous translation on CPWG calls
    3. Continue and expand staff use as proofreaders for non-English fluent drafters before drafts are made public
    4. Employee translators for drafts drafted in a language other than English
Metrics
  1. Number of advice drafts that result from this process (as opposed to the current process of random volunteers)
  2. Number of attempts to get feedback of the larger community
  3. Quantity of respondents to attempts to seek feedback
  4. Number of at-large community participants in policy/advice development
  5. Number of non-fluent English speakers engaged in policy/advice development
How long will it take to implement this plan?

...

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #16

Lead: Maureen Hilyard


Absence of consistent performance metrics.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

The ALAC has had a Metrics WG and an ALS Review Taskforce, both of which largely went into stasis during the IANA Transition and Accountability efforts. It is proposed to revive this activity as part of the At-Large Review Implementation.

The ALAC notes that regional differences make it more difficult to have uniformity over participation metrics, but agrees that is an important target. The ALAC notes that collecting such statistics is a staff-intensive operation.

Prioritization1:1:2 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 2nd priority group)
ARIWG comments

Metrics will be developed for each activity in which At-Large participants are involved in order to measure the effectiveness of our processes as well as the actual involvement of active participants who assist the ALAC to carry out its work within ICANN. Such evidence will not only provide transparency and accountability of the contribution made by At-Large with regards to their meaningful contribution in support of the policy development work carried out by ICANN's supporting organisations, but also of the degree of effort and engagement of the many volunteers whose meaningful contribution to the work of At-Large adds value to the development of policy that is an essential part of the the work of ICANN. Metrics could also legitimate requests made by At-Large for increased funding support for regional activities where there is still a need for further outreach to educate those in underserved sub-regions about ICANN. One specific goal for the metrics team during 2018-2019, will be the identification of 60 participants who demonstrate meaningful participation and engagement in both ICANN and their regions, to attend the ATLASIII in Montreal in November 2019

Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation

The Technology Task Force will requested to develop appropriate tools to record assessments of different activities based on the type of metrics being collected for some measurement purpose.

The Stakeholder Analysis Tool will be able to make use of any regional or country based metrics we develop first through At-Large and then further throughout ICANN

Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:


1. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide metrics that will assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal, as well as some long term measurable associated with metrics as an activity in itself

2. Each task that the At-Large community is involved in will require metrics in order to assess the achievement of key milestones as well as of the level of achievement of the entire activity

3. In order to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019, performance metrics will be used to assess each individual:

  • recorded attendance of regional as well as general At-Large meetings and involvements,
  • evidence of active participation in and meaningful contribution to these meetings
  • evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved policy recommendations
  • evidence of active participation and meaningful contribution to policy or other statements that At-Large is requested to participate in
  • evidence of active engagement in the distribution of information about ICANN and its activities at local. national or regional level
  • evidence of mentorship support given to colleagues, or the development of resources, to build further knowledge and understanding of the work of ICANN within the regions


Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
How long will it take to implement this plan?

...