Versions Compared

Key

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

Introduction to this workspace:

Welcome to the At-Large Review Implementation Prioritisation and Dependencies Workspace. 

The Board approved sixteen proposals suggested by the ALAC to resolve as a result of the At-Large Review.

The Organisational Effectiveness Committee has provided templates that are expected for each individual item, detailing the steps that At-Large will undertake to address each of these issues.

An Issues Team led by At-Large leaders will detail these steps as discussed by their work teams, and will bring these to the Implementation Working Group for comment and finalisation. 

This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.



Key related workspace: ARIWG Plan Development

To access the Issue you would like to view, click the Toggle cloak >  You will see that a demonstration model Item #1 has been started. But this is only draft and for demonstration purposes only.

Issues #1 - #16:


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#1 

Toggle Cloak

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 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 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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #2Uneven 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

Lead: Bastiaan Goslings

At-Large is increasingly focusing on individuals (both unaffiliated At-Large Members as well as members within
each ALS) instead of just ALS voting representatives. Four of the five (RALOs) allow individual members and the fifth, LACRALO, has already approved the concept and is developing the detailed rules. We will also use the ALSes to communicate with those within an ALS who may have an interest in ICANN.

RALOs have also started to identify experts on ICANN topics within their ALSes and among individual members and to increasingly engage them in ALAC’s policy work. Thus, a bi-directional flow of ICANN information continues to be strengthened.

These activities will require the production of information that is truly understandable (as identified in a recent ALAC-GAC Joint Statement) and available in multiple languages. As some of this will need to be created by At-Large staff, additional resources may be needed. We would suggest that At-Large Staff continue to work together with At-Large Leadership in looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders to facilitate the development of their skills and encourage them to stay and deepen their knowledge and expertise. Regarding the perception of unchanging leadership, statistics reporting involvement will be published

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


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

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

Issue #3

Lead: Holly Raiche


Staff resources are disproportionately concentrated on administrative support. Staff should have greater capacity to support preparation of policy advice.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
Continue to look for opportunities to utilize and develop the skills of At-Large support staff while ensuring that the positions taken by At-Large represent solely those of users. Ensure that the volunteer community has sufficient support services so as to best utilize their volunteer time. This may require a shift or development of skills among At-Large Staff as well as additional staff.
Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments
  1. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
  2. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
  3. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
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?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4

Toggle Cloak



Cloak

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

Issue #4

Lead: Maureen Hilyard


Leadership Team (ALT), which is not mandated by ICANN Bylaws, concentrates in the established leadership too many decision-making and other administrative powers which should be spread among the members of the ALAC.

Final Proposal as approved by the Board


The ALAC Chair will work with members of the ALAC and staff to better communicate the role and activities of the ALT ensuring that it is clear what the ALT does and does not do.
Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group)
ARIWG comments

This leadership model has been developed by the incoming Chair to offer a visual representation of the new At-Large Leadership Team (ALT), as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. The ALT now includes Regional Leaders, to encourage more interaction between the ALAC and the leaders of our regional member organisations. The objective is also to ensure that decisions and other important messages from the ICANN Board (through our At-Large Board representative) and from other constituencies of ICANN (through the ALAC Liaisons) are relayed more directly to Regional Leaders and will more easily filter to the At-Large Community through RALO meetings and outreach and engagement opportunities.

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

Introduction of the organigram to all the members to get buy in to the organisational model and the purposes behind making the information more transparent. This is proposed to take place during the Development Session of the ALAC , Regional Leaders and Liaisons which will be held at the conclusion of ICANN63 in Barcelona. This session will also give implementation issue teams a chance to discuss their plans for the items they have been assigned, with each other and to get feedback Other organisational teams (CPWG and O&E leads will be able to share some goals and objectives for their working teams during 2019, especially as we lead up to ATLASIII.


Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?ICANN Staff in conjunction with the ALAC/At-Large Leadership
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

Many of the issues raised have already been addressed in some way by the Incoming Chair. The following steps have been covered:

1. An Organigram has been developed to show a new At-Large Leadership model that is more inclusive and collaborative, as well as being more transparent and accountable. 

2. The Organigram demonstrates how leadership roles are dispersed among ALAC and Regional Leaders, as well as to key leads who take responsibility for the core tasks of At-Large - namely, Development of Policy Advice; Outreach and Engagement; and Organisational Matters 

3. Regional Leaders  have been incorporated into what is now the At-Large Leadership Team to enable them to share in ALAC discussions about key issues, and then to share any key messages with their regional members.

4. At-Large Leadership team meetings will be open to the ALAC and the public unless there are specific, usually personnel, issues to be discussed (as per any ALAC meeting). These matters will be discussed in camera.

5. A specific page on the At-Large Website will display the organigram which will be regularly updated with regards to current Working Groups and appointees to various roles that are allocated by the vote of the ALAC.

6. Roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership within At-Large will be more clearly defined on a page set aside for this purpose on the website, and available to all.

7. Staff will be assigned to the steps #5 and #6 as per Implementation Task #1 which is related to At-Large Wikis and the Website, and the work of At-Large.. 

Continuous Improvement(s)Staff will update the wiki spaces related to this task regularly as any changes are made to the ALAC and to other personnel and working groups or other activities related to the charts and other information
Metrics

Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place

How long will it take to implement this plan?Implementation will take place immediately after the Barcelona meeting. Once loaded onto the website, it will be updated as required. Ongoing



ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5

Toggle Cloak


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #6

Lead: Sebastian Bachollet


Election processes are excessively complex and have been open to allegations of unfairness.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
At-Large will continue to evolve its processes through its bottom-up, consensus based, community deliberations and update as and when needed.
Prioritization3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority)
ARIWG comments


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #7

Lead: Javier Rua-Jovet


Excessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
The ALAC has begun to review our WGs, ensuring that the ones we have are active and relevant. We have also started the process to revamp our WG web and Wiki presence to ensure that all WGs are properly represented and documented. Groups no longer active will be segregated, but still documented for historical purposes
Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group)
ARIWG comments

(MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice

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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #8

Lead: John Laprise


Social media and other Internet-based tools could be used more effectively, and at minimal cost, to continuously survey and channel end-user input into ICANN policy making processes.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
We will continue to investigate opportunities to use Social Media and other online tools that prove useful to bring end-users’ voices to ICANN and vice -versa. However, we caution against seeing social media and online tools as a substitute for other means of participation. We are eager to work with ICANN Organization to understand ICANN’s interests in this area, and the tools available to integrate and communicate our work more effectively.
Prioritization3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority)
ARIWG comments

(MH) This item highlights how we can use social media to enhance the work that is being done in O&E, so that some collaboration with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate

Also to the communication channels item #10, looking at effective ways to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as 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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9

Toggle Cloak


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10

Toggle Cloak


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #11

Lead: Olivier Crepin Leblond


While broadly popular, Global ATLAS meetings every 5 years have been difficult to organize and short on effective results. More frequent regional meetings would be more effective in encouraging both policy input and outreach while familiarizing more of At Large with workings of ICANN.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

The ALAC will proceed with its plans as approved by the Board, pending appropriate funding. As with all At-Large activities, there will be an increased focus on tracking and metrics.

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

(MH) ATLASIII, ICANN66 Montreal, Canada in November 2019 will be dependent on the outcomes of this implementation plan. The Metrics Issue #16 also relates to this task.

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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12

Toggle Cloak


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13

Toggle Cloak


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #14

Lead: Alan Greenberg


Need for an innovative approach to funding a revitalized At-Large.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds.

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


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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15

Toggle Cloak


Cloak

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

Issue #15

Lead: Maureen Hilyard


Need to reinforce impact of outreach and engagement activities.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

As noted previously, subject to available funding, we do look for opportunities to explain At-Large and attract new participants at non-ICANN events. When opportunities have arisen where funds are available to bring a targeted group to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.

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

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #13 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
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?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16

Toggle Cloak


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 would be helpful in developing 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?