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 discussion 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 #5

Lead: Tijani Ben Jemaa


Uneven contribution of At-Large to a coordinated ICANN strategy for ‘Outreach and Engagement’. Missed opportunities for coordination with other constituencies and ICANN staff.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

To the extent allowed by ICANN’s mission and available funding, members of At-Large and the At-Large organizations will continue to, and potentially increase, our involvement
with other I* organizations as a method for increasing the visibility of At-Large, exploring areas for mutual collaboration and for attracting additional At-Large volunteers.

At-Large will continue to work closely with GSE Staff to contribute to regional outreach plans and to encourage participation in a cross-community, cross-organizational fashion.

Prioritization2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group)
ARIWG comments

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #12, #13,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach?

(AC) What is the objective of the Capacity Building Program?

What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

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


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

Proposed implementation steps:


Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
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 #9

Lead: John Laprise


Need for increased At-Large Community awareness and staff training regarding the use of social media.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
The ALAC will request additional staff skill development in the area of social media, and to work cooperatively with ICANN Communications social media specialists.
Prioritization2.2.2 (Medium needs; medium risk; #2 priority group)
ARIWG comments

(MH) This task is related to Activity Item #8 about using social media to assist At-Large with its outreach attempts to attract more participants into our policy development areas and how we can do this more effectively

(AC) Also linked to Capacity Building Program as a transversal objective to build O&E, besides disseminating information.

Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:


Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
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 #10

Lead: Dev Anand Teelucksingh


There are a multitude of communications channels used by At Large. This has led to fractured and undocumented communications.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

The ALAC Technology Taskforce regularly reviews various communications tools with the aim of improving At-Large participation. The At-Large Community is very diverse and the selection of any new tools must accommodate this diversity. We will also need to continue to investigate how we can overcome the lack of affordable communications for many of our participants and future participants.

Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments

(MH) This item also highlights how we can use what communication channels are available to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community.

Some collaboration with the social media items (#8 & #9) but also with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate, to enhance the work that is being done in O&E

As well as some metrics to assess the effectiveness of any communication channels that we implement.

(Satish) Some RALOs bring out their periodic newsletters, which are useful in providing information (including policy updates and progress of initiatives) to their community. I'd like to suggest an At-Large-wide newsletter that can periodically update the At-Large community as a whole, besides also informing other AC/SOs on the activities of ALAC.

(AC) A trimester newsletter (depending on resources) could be used as an O&E tool, as well as inform the At-Large community.

Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:


Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
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 #12

Lead: Cheryl Langdon Orr


ALAC input to a coordinated ICANN Outreach sub-optimal.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

As noted in Issue 5, the ALAC supports such external activity to the extent that funding is available and it coincides with ICANN’s mission. Increases in such funding would be appreciated, but in light of the FY19 draft budget, we are now in a mode of trying to minimize impact of the proposed cuts to such activities.

Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #13,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

(AC) At-Large on the Road approach...

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


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

Proposed implementation steps:


Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
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 #13

Lead: Glenn McKnight


Need more systematic RALO participation in regional events
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

At-Large Staff working with relevant departments to develop a single location which will point to travel funding opportunities and documentation of what resources were ultimately distributed, to the extent supported by those ICANN entities providing funding and reports.

Prioritization2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group)
ARIWG comments

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required

(MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the effectiveness of our current approaches to ensure that our programmes are actually achieving the proposed objectives and impacting the target groups that we want them to reach? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
  • The priorities of the CROP funding initiative has direct impact on the number and types of events we are underwritten to participate. Need assurances on the quantity of sponsored trips to properly plan the year events
  • Approval of RALO strategic plans and the subsequent waiting period for staff approval directly impacts some trips that could occur shortly after approval
  • Clear and open communication on the GSE activities so that RALO's can participate

(AC) Documentation to distribute must be available in diverse formats for audience. (hard-copy, digital, QR codes, etc.)

Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
  • Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
  • An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:


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

...