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 #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
  4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
  5. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
  6. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
  7. (JC) Performance review

8. (NA) A targeted policy development training program to at-large staff goes hand-in hand with at-large community development or capacity building program. Reasoning the peer learning and discussions enhances the learning.  

9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure.

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?(JC) ICANN Org for HR aspects, ALAC for actual implementation, with supervision also provided under CPWG leadership (or any other WG dealing with ALAC policy)
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

  1. (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
  2. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
  3. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
  4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
  5. (JC) Performance review
  6. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
  7. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
  8. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
Continuous Improvement(s)


Metrics
  1. (JC) Performance review
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 #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. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position.


(NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf


(NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.

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

Status of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, 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

...

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) Agree with Maureen’s comment on metrics. A detailed rubric should be in place.

(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


(NA) Coordination with I* organizations and also with ICANN cross community to conduct outreach and engagement activities, to put a clear objectives and a measurable deliverables to be set in advance.


(NA) There is also a need to do outreach and engagement within ICANN SOs/ACs, because not all of their members understand At-Large work.


Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if 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 #6

Lead: Sebastien 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

(NA) Although At-Large LT election process have evolved and enhanced, but there is still need to move beyond the pre-arranged nomination process of the same leadership team changing roles,  because it hinders the introduction of new emerging leaders to come forwards under the perception that everything is set in advance.   

(NA) A limit on the number of continuous rounds leaders can hold role in the LT. Then call for a certain number of years gap before returning to a new or same role. This will give a chance for new leaders to emerge.  

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?

...