Page History

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.

(MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups.

 (AC) re 4. c. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn to make make recommendations to the community on prioritization (NOT SURE I Understand the idea) Thanks for the question Alfredo! What I'm proposing is that instead of every call for public comment simply announced to the community by staff, prompting individuals to take up things of personal interest, we bring each public comment before the CPWG and discuss it's relevance to end users and, only if deemed relevant to our particular perspective, do we make a call for drafters. Make sense?

(AC) Agree.

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.
6. (HM) logging why we decide to comment or not comment on a certain topic and its relevance to end users
   
   
   

(NA for Nadira) suggesting 6. Staff to provide a summary documenting all contributors (at-large individuals and/or  ALAC members), once the comment  period of certain policy is closed. (reasoning, it might work as incentives for individuals)

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

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