ページ履歴
...
| ATLAS II Group | Report |
|---|---|
ATLAS II Working Group | ATLAS II: planning, execution and lessons learned PDF |
ATLAS II Survey Group | |
ATLAS II Events Group | The Events Working Group started its work just after the final approval of the ATLAS II project and the constitution of the organizing committee. It started by proposing a rough schedule of the whole activities of the summit that has been refined during several months according to the ALAC standard works and the summit specific activities. One of the most challenging things the working group faced was the availability of the meeting rooms with the adequate size and shape. The Hilton Metropol wasn’t that large to easily accommodate the normal ICANN meeting and the At-Large Summit. Several interactions with the ICANN meeting team and a lot of effort were deployed to reach the final arrangement. The most difficult thing was to find rooms after Sunday because the meeting staff accepted to organize both the ICANN meeting and the At-Large summit in the same Hilton Metropol hotel assuming that no more rooms will be assigned to ATLAS II starting Monday except one large room on Thursday. I would like to thank Nancy and her team for their understanding and their efforts to conciliate the irreconcilable. It was a tough task, but with the willingness of finding a solution to all problems, we ended with an acceptable and workable arrangement. I would like here to mention the hard problem of the venue of the “fair of opportunities” that was supposed to be the ALAC room with the U shape tables installed. It was a real problem because what was supposed to be a relax interaction and networking space would be a crowded and locked area with no way to circulate in. The willingness of reaching the aim of the event and avoid the failure pushed us to change some parameters (date) and have a better solution. I find it the most successful achievement of our Working Group. The other task of the working group was to form the thematic groups according to the 5 themes chosen by the ALS representatives through a survey. But in Singapore, this task was handed over to Evan Leibovitch and Wolf Ludwig. |
ATLAS II Sponsors Group | Report of ATLAS II Sub-Working Group: Sponsorship
The task of this working group was to search for sponsors for complementary activities of ATLAS II. The ATLAS II base budget did not cover any meals for participants, nor did it cover any drinks, parties or non-meeting event. Furthermore, the ATLAS II Fayre was not fully covered by the Budget and certainly no funding for any promotional items, music/band, drinks etc.
The first step taken was to draft a standard sponsorship proposal that could be sent to all potential sponsors. This covered all aspects of the different types of sponsorship levels possible, the type of activity that could be sponsored and the kind of exposure a sponsor would receive in return. Sponsorship costs were kept high due to the large number of participants expected. The document also contained pictures of past ALAC and RALO events to make it appealing. The search for sponsors was started well in advance, with some sponsors being contacted 8 months before the event in order to be able to vote the sponsorship costs into their yearly sponsorship budget. As a result, larger sums of sponsorship were possible. All sponsors were contacted by email, but a follow-up was made in person at every opportunity. - ICANN 47 in Durban (preparation) - IGF in Bali (request) - ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires (follow-up) - NetMundial in Brazil - ICANN 49 in Singapore (more sponsor follow-up)
On many occasions, things went faster by going straight to the more senior attendee at the ICANN meeting in person, especially after receiving little response from a sponsor - what worked well Personal connections with senior people in the sponsor's corporations yielded a good return. When a company was serious about sponsorship, it replied quickly and made its commitment very fast indeed. Offering a sponsor a choice of different sponsorships as well as a choice of various types of events (explaining the event in detail) helped a lot with a sponsor's response. Some sponsors came up with a counter proposal. Being flexible about counter proposals helped. In one instance, a sponsor converted the offer of funding by an in-kind offer that they would organise the event themselves. In another instance, a sponsor just offered cash funding with freedom to choose what the ATLAS II Organising Committee wanted to allocate the sum for. Once connection and deal signing was done by the volunteers, At-Large Staff took over the process of accounting & funds transfer from the sponsor to the relevant budget. This was left 100% in ICANN At-Large Staff hands and worked very well. There was no need for an external bank account. - what worked less well Some sponsors did not immediately come back with feedback. They took time to reply. Representatives verbally gave their word that their company was going to fund this event to a significant level and the funds never came. If after the 3rd follow-up a company does not reply, do not waste your time - they are just giving you the run-around. Some sponsors said no but in order to deflect any sour relationship, offered to make introductions to other potential sponsors - and these sponsors came up with nothing either. Some sponsors said they would not be able to fund ATLAS II for whatever reason but would be happy sponsoring events in the future - again, this could be a deflection tactic or a truthful intent - in any case, treat all such responses with good faith and respond very positively. Do not burn bridges. ICANN initially insisted on the sponsorship levels to keep to levels that were - what did not work at all Cold calling asking for potential sponsors, without an introduction: 100% failure rate, with either a flat out refusal or mostly being ignored altogether. Do not try this unless you have a lot of time and can call companies to follow-up afterwards. Late requests for sponsorship, 2 months before the event: 100% fail. Some sponsors were confirmed barely a month before the event date, but they had already given written confirmation about the level/kind of their funding and requested for the next stage (funds transfer discussion) to take place. As soon as a sponsor is only ready to provide verbal confirmation and shies away from written confirmation, that sponsor might fail to deliver. Some sponsors funded the ICANN meeting itself and were reluctant to sponsor what was another ICANN activity in addition. ICANN refused to allocate any of the funds to ATLAS II activities after having received sponsorship from a sponsor that could be interested in sponsoring ATLAS II activities. Sponsors having already sponsored the ICANN meeting refused to ask ICANN to allocate some funds to ATLAS II from this fund as a matter or policy. The ATLAS II organising committee was therefore alone in securing sponsorship funds. - were people engaged enough? why? how? No, WG participants were not engaged at all. Searching for sponsors had to be started as soon as possible - nearly a year in advance. By the time participants joined the sponsorship working group, the sponsoring proposal document had already been drafted and was about to be sent out. Participants in the WG were too late to catch up. Also - participants in the sponsorship working group need to have several qualities: - writing and marketing skills into producing an attractive sponsorship proposal - the ability to work in bursts of activity: sponsors require quick answers hence when more information is needed about one aspect of the proposal, the WG should be able to come together and put together a complimentary document in less than a week. - a network of potential sponsors including connections at higher management level Some At-Large participants that were not part of the sponsorship working group offered excellent introductions that led to a sponsorship deal, so it is worth asking all At-Large members to help with their networks. Overall Recommendation It is important for At-Large to develop a network of trusted sponsors by follow-up after the event with the sponsor, sending them pictures of the event as well as potential documents that summarised the event, so as to make them feel part of the success of the overall ATLAS. This database of sponsors should be kept alive as institutional memory somewhere on the ATLAS Web Site, or kept in a database by Staff, or on a protected WIKI page. |
ATLAS II Logistics Group | Report of ATLAS II Sub-Working Group: Logistics The Logistics WG was supposed to beresponsible for coordinating all summit logistics such as keeping track of all attending ALSes, hotel, travel, conference rooms, interpretation services, remote connectivity, printed material, mailing lists, Wikis, invoicing and summit budget. - what worked well Most ATLAS II participants made it to London without having had to ask the Logistics WG for help. - what worked less well No members of the working group decided to pick up the task of going through the groundwork of looking through logistics details of prior meetings in the venue. Some of the local logistics were instead explained by the Communications working group. - what did not work at all? Keeping track of attending ALSes: at the end of the day this was done by At-Large Staff with the two ATLAS Co-Chairs. Keeping track of hotel, travel, conference rooms, interpretation etc. : all done by At-Large Staff. Keeping track of budget: done by At-Large Staff. Keeping track of VISA problems: because Visa problems are often personal in nature, failed visa applicants contacted the ALAC Chair and At-Large Staff who followed-up directly with the local host without sharing the information with the rest of the group on privacy grounds. - were people engaged enough? why? how? No engagement whatsoever, because none of the working group members were local to London. They therefore had no idea of any of the local logistics. Overall recommendation A logistics group should mostly be composed of people who are local to the venue's location. The group does not need to be large - it just needs to be effective. Logistical problems that are personal in nature or require privacy should not be handled by such a group and can easily be handled by named representatives, if not by the ALAC Chair & At-Large Staff, along with the meetings team.
|
ATLAS II Public Relations Group | ATLAS II Public Relations Group Summary What worked well? Success in engagement with ICANN Communications Team during the London Event Success in bridging ICANN Communications Staff with At-Large Members to create pre-event and during event short video communications and newsletter Great support from At-Large staff in assistance with connections with ICANN Communications and numerous logistics support. Our messaging as defined was clear across social media, and web site properties. What worked less well? Engagement withICANN Communications Team prior to and post London Event. Social media, while successful could be better planned for future events. ICANN ATLAS II Website creation and maintenance was a challenge
Our plan lacked focus resulting in a reactionary communications processes Were people engaged enough? Why? How? While people were engaged in the process, execution was a challenge due to multiple roles played by the various participants at the Summit. How can we improve participation before the event? More education, based-upon issues, not geography How can we improve participation during the event?
Overall participation by At-Large folks was excellent. From a Public Relations/press perspective, we need to create stories and personalities with which the press can engage to better get the word out about the At Large role in ICANN. Increase social media presence and outreach. |
ATLAS II Return on Investment Group | August 22, 2014 Full Report Pending Several action Items including the distribution of a Survey to the attendees are under way; We still require input from each of the other Groups with both qualitative and quantitative data to include in our Post ATLAS II Report - 2014, it would be appreciated greatly if these can be soon passed on via staff or to the ATLAS II email list. |
ATLAS II Fayre of Opportunities Working Group | June 24, 2014 London, UK Event Fayre of Opportunities The Fayre of Opportunities was a huge success bringing together the RALO communities in an evening of inspiring speeches, RALO displays, guest musicians, food and drinks. Many of the RALO's also brought food and candy from their regions. The facility was ideal since the room provided a good stage for the performance and speakers. The RALO's each had table and television to showcase their activities. Some of the RALO's were great hosts in having uniform outfits and small gifts for the attendees. The only downsides to this otherwise great event was that there was not enough time for networking as there were too many speeches If any critical comments I would say that the speeches were too long Short Video http://animoto.com/play/t3t1LBFJ61hNf7tEaI0IQA Pictures of the Event https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157644961291308/ Video at event Fadi http://youtu.be/pb-2eh3q_uM?list=UUJA15ByE_VwRwN6gGjZhWTg Olivier , Wolfgang, Nmema http://youtu.be/jk59hcc6IPw?list=UUJA15ByE_VwRwN6gGjZhWTg Part Three |
ATLAS II Communications Working Group | First of all I have to clarify: Being one of three co chairs of ATLAS 2 Communication WG, I can only express my personal opinion. What worked well: We start our work with an enormous enthusiasm. We planed our future task following a time line, and defining what to do and how. We were very carefully managing times and things to do. My co chairs are excellent team leaders and they were fundamental in this part of our tasks.
What worked less well – Maybe we were unaware at the beggining about staff times, and our obligation to adapt to it. also adapt our work to staff tecnology standards and protocols. Maybe our main fault was lack of experience on this issues.
What did not work at all – I'm sure (my personal opinion) the relationship between co chairs and staff, was the worst thing in the development of our work in charge. But in this conflict there was two parts, so the responsability also was shared, and we (chairs) did not know or could solve it obstacle.
Were people engaged enough? why? how? –.yes . at the beginning WG had many people, of all regions, involved and engaged. later, the commitment and participation declined. I personally think, the consequence was many changes made in our original time line, due lack of coordination with staff members. On This lack of coordination we (chairs and WG) always had to adapt and never backwards, the main responsibility in my opinion was of the staff members and their enormous quantity of work for this event, and their incapacity to coordinate all their tasks at the same time.
How can we improve participation before the event? - I think, our main fault was lack of experience working with staff, their times and protocols. In my opinion future events, first, they need an staff clarification about what are the rules that WG must adopt.
How can we improve participation during the event? I think the mutual respect, is definetely the main factor to improve participation during all events. Respecting the previous work of others is another way to improve participation.
My final observations are: ATLAS 2 Communication WG reached aims proposed. Previous hard work done by WG members was not respected by some Staff members. Lack of experience in WG chairs, and incapacity of staff to respect other opinions could be the resume of this history. Hopefully this experience (nor bad nor good) can serve for future events. |
ATLAS II Mentoring Program Working Group | ATLAS II Mentoring Program WG Summary What worked well?
What worked less well?
Were people engaged enough? Why? How? In general people were engaged with the Program. We had some resistance prior to the Meeting because some people did not understand the main objective of this Mentoring Program. Then when they understood that we wanted to build community and help newcomer members to take advantage of the ICANN meeting and the roles of the Mentors and Mentees, the collaboration and participation in the Program increased. Several At-Large experienced members started the communication with their groups 2 or 3 weeks before the meeting and shared not only theoretical knowledge about At-Large and ICANN but also practical tips to take advantage of the meeting and build their own networks. After the meeting in general there was a lack of engagement of Mentees. They did not upload the report of their participation in the Program. This means that at this time we cannot follow up on their learning of the meeting and the Program. How can we improve participation before the event?
How can we improve participation during the event?
|
...
