Page History

(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.  

(MM) We need to control the revolving door perception while attempting to keep experienced members on board. It is a careful balancing act. Term limits can help. Perhaps some advisor positions or emeritus like they have in universities

(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

(NA) Social media in ICANN basically used to disseminate updates and it is one direction, however,  having it as a channel for engagement with followers need a dedicated skilled staff/volunteers, the engagement what attracts the right followers.  Again, it is not about the tool, but the type of added value posts that sustain interest in the channel.

(MM) In reality, most end-users never get near an ICANN process and when they do, the language is so foreign, they might not come back. Some communications experts who can speak about ICANN issues without getting into ICANN language would be really useful.    

(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.

(AC) It seems that ICANN produces Regional Newsletters, in addition to those prepared by Regions. Could this effort be coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts? See - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-newsletter

(NA) From following ICANN communication specialists one can notice that they are unfortunately not social media specialists.  There is a need to well-designed capacity building program for staff only on social media engagements.      

(MM) I reiterate my point about the need for communications experts who don't speak ICANNese and who can package the message in a way that the enduser can relate to it.  

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.

(MM) I spoke to one former ATLAS participant who worked really hard on a particular session and when the advice that came out of that session was "rejected", that person went away, figured there were better things to do. So, the lesson there is to make sure participants feel their time has been well spent and that they contributed to something worthwhile.

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.

(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...

(NA) Rethinking of the outreach programs and in how to conduct them in order to increase its effectiveness.

(NA) Trying different approach to reduce the cost and at the same time engage at-large community members. Preparing a toolkit to ALSes in how to conduct an outreach and readymade templates. Allocate travel support to outstanding members of the ALSes to conduct the outreach regional or national events activities on behalf of the ALAC/RALOs LT, such approach will be a bottom-up and produce more engagementsLT, such approach will be a bottom-up and produce more engagements.

(MM) Outreach in a specific locality has to be done on a regular basis. On-offs don't work. My ideal program would be one that does 2-3 per year reaching some of the same people and a few new ones. So the content has to remain fresh and current.

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.

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 legitimize 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.

(NA) the above comments is well written and has to be carried forward to all RALOs and their ALSes.

(MM) I organized an outreach event last February and submitted a report to ICANN staff which contained metrics. I am sure other people do this too. So, that what happens to that stuff at the moment?

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

(JC) Selection of methodology for scoring identified performance metrics.

• (JC) Tool(s) for collecting each identified performance metric
• (JC) Staff to assist in monitoring and collection of data relevant to each identified performance metric
• (JC) Methodology for scoring each identified/collected performance metric
• (JC) Procedure for dealing with changes in data collection, solution

1. The Metrics WG will resume to discuss and decide on performance metrics to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019; as well as how the data will be collected, scored, monitored and evaluated

2. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide appropriate metrics that will assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal

3. Each of the three streams of At-Large activity (Organisational, Policy and O&E) will establish a goal with measurable objectives which can evaluated at the end of the year to assess achievement of the work stream objectives during the year.

(JC) Review of solution post implementation to establish the effectiveness and fairness in achievement of the objective, as well as majority support of the At-Large community for the same.

(MH) some metrics which have been suggested but still yet to be discussed

• 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

(JC) I would suggest bulleted items under point 3 be identified performance metrics while we consider that methodology or combination of performance metrics should be used for assessment. Some At-Large folks are not in the position to meet all metrics so a fair methodology is needed for scoring.

(MM) I don't know about "evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved recommendations.. I would rather say evidence of explanation of such recommendations.

1. (JC) Level of support by the At-Large community