Page History

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 engagements.

(MM) Outreach in a specific locality has to be done on a regular basis. One-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.

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.

2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group)

CROP and Non Discretionary funds to leverage on regional event participation

(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

(NA) Per my point for issue #12, the more ALSes are engaged in the outreach activities on the local level the more closer At-large gets to its objectives.

(NA) The format and the agenda items of RALOs monthly meeting has to tailored to discuss with the ALSes attendees the latest issues and what they have to say about it and put minimal time to convey important updates that is relevant to them.

• 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.)

• Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
• An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
• Consistent ICANN funding for CROP
• Flexibility and nimble response from staff on approvals
• Up to date Wiki page of funders, requirements and deadlines
• Up to date marketing materials
• Promotion on Social Media of ATLARGE participation
• Ownership of Grant software Grant Station
  
  

1. A full disclosure of all the ICANN  Global and ICANN regional events formatted in  an easy to access monthly calendar 
2. Use of RALO templates for completion of regional plans and mentoring to accelerate the completion and endorsement of regional outreach plans
3. Document and share any valuable lessons learnt from Outreach  and Engagement efforts
4. Access to a pool of multilingual e-flyers and print materials for events
5. Comprehensive list of non ICANN funding opportunities to share with the ATLARGE community
6. Followup strategy of all leads

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).

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