Page History

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

(MH) Do we need to review our application forms for ALSes and Individual members to ensure that we have active participants in our At-Large activities? Otherwise we are planning to put an inordinate amount of work in to reach whom we assume are potential participants who aren't actually there. In APRALO we have 20 names of which only about 3 or 4 are active. I never see others at our meetings etc, so why do they join? are they participating in ICANN Learn?

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered. 1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications? 2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not? 3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done? 4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

(JH) We also need to clearly indicate that in an ALS we can have many active people from one ALS. Previously there was hesitancy to give out confluence accounts to more than the main and alternate rep.

(NA for Nadira) I could see two fold of the “Outreach an Engagement”, Outreach is one and Engagement is two.  Handling the Outreach, RALOs with its community of active ALSes to take part of the outreach within their ALSes members and to their wider community. 

(NA) Awareness programs of at-large and ALAC work comes before any community members to start in policy engagements.

(NA) Create a system of shadow mentor to those who wanted to get directly into policy work.  

(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box.

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered.

1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications?

2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not?

3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done?

4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

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.

10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members

11. (JH) Staff should take notes and summarize the discussion connected with each agenda item in a meeting

(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)

(HM) with supervision provided by the implementation working group of the ALAC

1. (HM) ALAC internal review about the role of the staff in policy making in the past
2. (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
3. (HM) Consider having one of the staff dedicated to policy issues
4. (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
5. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
6. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
7. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
8. JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
9. (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
10. (JC) Performance review

1. (JC) Performance review

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.

(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

(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.

(JH) ICANN GSE staff should collaborate with local RALOS and ALSes in the region and apprise them of events with Think Tanks, Univeristies, conferences, private sector programs so that local ALSes can participate and conduct outreach and engagement with these groups. Often we find out abou these events after the fact and they are perfect outreach and engagement opportunities that are lost.

• Additional travel support over what is currently available
• More promotionnal promotional material of better quality
  

• Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions)
• Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year
• Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups
  

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.

(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.

(NA) For the approved Global ATLAS, make sure to have a tangible measurable objectives, that help recruit well engaged community members to potential newcomers who have the time to volunteer to at-large policy work.  To provide justifications to ATLAS meetings, is to have those attended the meeting did actually engaged.  Adding to avoid having ATLAS to be a replica of a talk show conference.

(JH) Make sure all attendees are actively working on one of the working groups or assigned to one of the programs tor sessions that are held

(JH) assign a community member to take notes for their session and this way we could have all programs covered and make it easier for social media and other tools to promote this event.

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.

(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

(MH - in bylaws: The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.

(NA) with reference to “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.” was there a measurement of the success rates of these program? How many of those benefited from these programs continued to be engaged in ICANN SO/ACs?

(NA) A rubric is needed to make sure those invited would be worth the investment.

(JH) More collaboration with Local GSE who attend many events and could provide ALSes with additional opportunities to outreach and engage at a local level with minimal travel needed.

1. Clarify annual budget support for outreach and engagement activities for ALAC to coordinate outreach to individual internet users
2. Clarify ICANN's monitoring and evaluation procedures relating to O&E activities, as they may pertain to potential for future funding
3. Present an annual schedule of At-Large O&E activities (with metrics) for the ALAC annual report (including funding source for each activity).