Page History
26 Oct 2010 agenda
WT C AGENDA: 26 OCT 2010
Participants: Tijani Ben Jemaa, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Gareth Shearman, Dave Kissoondoyal, Sylvia Herlein Leite
Apologies: Adam Peake, James Corbin
Absent: Fouad Bajwa, Shaarawy Abd Elbaky, Freddy Linares Torres
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White
STANDING AGENDA ITEMS
1. Roll call - 5 min
2. Review of AIs from 28 Sep 2010 meeting - 5 min
a. Heidi to inquire if FY12 budget timeline can be released in written form to WT C (assuming Kevin Wilson’s e-mail during week of 11 Oct to SO and AC leadership did not included the timeline already).
- Status: Done.
Heidi: The latest news is that, later this week, Cheryl and the other Community Chairs will receive a note asking who should be included in a first briefing call. There will then be a second briefing call in November open to everyone.
Cheryl: We’ve been waiting for this note for quite a while. I fail to understand why a first somewhat closed briefing is needed before a later Community call. In the first call, I expect to invite the whole of WT C, which includes all of the ALAC’s Subcommittee on Finance and Budget, and anyone from the ALAC ExCom and entire ALAC who’d like to attend. From At-Large, they’re going to get basically the same people on both calls, perhaps with a few more on the second one.
Olivier: Is there any way of pressing them on getting this e-mail sent to Cheryl and the others?
Cheryl: I’d think not, since Heidi has already been in frequent touch with them about this.
b. Tijani to e-mail (on about 12 OCt 2010) all members of WT C to ask (a) if they agree or not with the use of a SWOT analysis and (b) if they suggest alternative tools.
- Status: Done.
Tijani: Everyone, except Dave, responded in favor of the SWOT analysis.
Dave: No, no, I also am in favor of the SWOT.
c. (If no alternative tools are suggested by WT C members via e-mail) Olivier and Tijani to initiate WT B SWOT analysis limited to the WT's recommendations (Recs. 5 & 6), on about 20 Oct 2010.
- Status: SWOT initiated on Recs. 5 & 6; see item for discussion below.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
3. WT C Simplified At-Large Improvements Outline - Seth, 5 min.
Seth introduced the WT C Simplified At-Large Improvements Outline, which contains the subtasks only for the recommendations for which WT C is responsible – that is, Recs. 5 and 6. The point of the document is simply to make navigating between the WT C recommendations easier.
Olivier: It is the WT’s responsibility to add, delete, and revise the subtasks of Recs. 5 and 6 as it sees fit.
Tijani: I think every member should review the subtasks of Recs. 5 and 6 and decide what he or she thinks. Actually, I believe this would be better done together during a group call, rather than individually, to make editing easier.
Cheryl: It’s just a matter of someone owning the document. But the group’s decisions need to be archived. It can be done in a collaborative space that actually records the input of different people being shown in different colors.
Tijani: But what we should do is have this discussion in a conference call with one person, such as Seth or I, recording the group decisions. Because if we simply rely on different colors, we won’t know which WT member’s edit is represented by which color.
Cheryl: Actually, I believe that a function of Confluence is that you can identify who made which changes – for example, the colors can be coded. But you can decide this in a future meeting.
Cheryl: For now, the links on the WT B Confluence page are quite broken and need to be fixed. (See the “Any other business” agenda item below.)
4. Continued planning for WT C's meeting with CFO Kevin Wilson in Cartagena -- 10 min.
Tijani: Wednesday in Cartagena is now looking very crowded.
Olivier: And since Kevin Wilson will likely be meeting with us remotely, would it be better to have him simply join one of our regular meetings, rather than Wednesday in Cartagena?
Heidi: Actually, Kevin would be happy to meet with this WT whenever you’d like in Cartagena.
Cheryl: And, even if Wednesday is busy, it is actually one of the relatively better days.
Heidi: The deadline for the meeting confirmation forms is actually not until the 4th or 5th of November. But there’s nothing wrong with the Wednesday at 10 am spot. In fact, it coincides with a coffee break, so there wouldn’t be a lot else to be missed at that time – at most, a 30-minute overlap with other meetings.
Olivier: Let’s say then that we’ll leave the scheduling of this session to Heidi.
5. SWOT analysis of Recs. 5 & 6 – 15 min
- See “Strategic planning for WT C (O. Crepin-Leblond; 26 Sep 2010)” either on the WT C Workspace or here.
Tijani: I have received the SWOT analyses from only three WT members. For it to be relevant, we must wait until we have it from a reasonable number of members. Hopefully, we’ll have them before next Friday, when Olivier and I will be working together in Tunis to combine the various SWOT analyses. So I urge every member to send their analysis in.
Olivier: Yes, I concur. It takes only about 20 minutes of creative thinking to fill it out.
Cheryl: Let’s discuss the ones that you have received. Is there any significant overlap in the strengths or weaknesses listed?
Tijani: Not really. But it doesn’t make sense to compare just two or three.
Cheryl: Would it make sense to add the strengths and weaknesses we now receive to the original example SWOT analysis linked to in the strategic planning e-mail from Olivier?
Tijani: Yes, it is exactly my intention to do that – to compare the old analysis to our new one, in order to get some useful data. But we must have a reasonable number of new submissions for this to make sense.
Cheryl: Need it be done individually or could this be done as a collaborative effort? Discussing it together could lead to ideas that might not come out otherwise. For example, I consider our global regional outreach through the ALSes to be both a strength and a weakness. I’d like to know how others respond to that.
Tijani: Of course, our SWOT analysis is limited to Recs. 5 and 6.
Cheryl: Yes, which is the reason I say “through the ALSes.”
Cheryl: In terms of doing this exercise collaboratively, I pictured a four-quadrant template for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. We could set up one for strategic planning (Rec. 5), one for operational planning (Rec. 5), and one for budget (Rec. 6). Then, we could start each one off with the appropriate points from the old SWOT analysis in Olivier’s e-mail, to act as seeds to show members how to start, with a note telling members to add their own entries to each quadrant.
Tijani: I agree with making the template available to members to add to, but not to the idea of starting the quadrants off with examples from the old SWOT.
Olivier: Instead of using all the points from the old SWOT, I suggest we just pick 2-3 as examples in each quadrant.
Cheryl: Okay, I’ve put the points from the old SWOT into AC Room’s pod 4. Now, take a look and tell me which you would use in which quadrants as examples.
The list Cheryl placed in pod 4 is attached at the end of these meeting minutes.
Olivier: Well, looking at the list, we might be able to find a home for each as an example somewhere in our three four-quadrant tables.
Dave: Could we have a collaborative Confluence page that contains these three tables into which the WT members can list their entries?
Tijani: The problem with that is that one person’s entries can and would influence those of other members.
Cheryl: Well, why is it important that this be an individual exercise, uninfluenced by one another, rather than a group activity?
Olivier: My thinking about that was in line with Tijani’s – that it would stifle creativity. But, since there’s opposition to the idea, let’s reconsider.
Tijani: It’s fine with me. We can change our mind and do this as a group activity if people would prefer.
Heidi: I’ve just begun a draft SWOT page for WT B’s use collaboratively; the link is in the AC Room Chat. (The link is: https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/WT+C+-+SWOT+Analysis.)
Olivier: The only suggestion I would make to this, Heidi, is to not have it literally as a four-quadrant table, so as to allow for longer entries.
Heidi: Also, the Confluence pages extend down basically endlessly. So, even though there’s a table of four-quadrants, it actually doesn’t limit the length of the entries.
Cheryl: Still, I’d encourage people to be brief. They should use bullet points – about 3-5 words. They should not include the rationale behind the points. If people want, the rationale can go elsewhere or can simply be linked to.
Tijani: I’d say there’s no need for names to be added for identification. And they also should know that they can repeat someone else’s point, which would give a sense of the degree of concurrence we have on any one point.
Cheryl: To show concurrence, it might be more efficient for people just to add a “+1” to points with which they agree.
Cheryl: And, since it will be in a collaborative space, we all can collaborate – that is, go into the page and add our own entries. If for some reason a member can not do so, then he/she can either (a) e-mail the comments to Seth and Tijani or (b) use the Comment function at the bottom of the collaborative page to list his/her points.
>> AI: Heidi and Seth to complete the collaborative SWOT page for WT B, which will include a four-quadrant (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) for each of these three topics: strategic planning, operational planning, and budget.
>> AI: Olivier, if he wishes, to add the entries found in the old SWOT analysis linked to in the strategic planning e-mail he sent to WT C into the three four-quadrant tables on WT C’s collaborative SWOT page.
>> AI: Tijani to send e-mail to WT C members who have not yet handed in their SWOT contributions telling them:
- To go to WT B’s collaborative SWOT page and list their entries before Friday, 5 November.
- If they can not do so in the three four-quadrant tables for some reason, they can (a) e-mail their entries to Tijani and Seth or (b) use the Comment functions at the bottom of the collaborative page to list their entries.
- They need not identify their points with their name.
- If they agree with a point already in one of the quadrants, they can simply type “+!” after the point.
>> AI: All WT B members to go to the WT C collaborative SWOT page (https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/WT+C+-+SWOT+Analysis) before Friday, 5 November, 2010, and add their contributions.
6. Discussion of which discrete subtasks under Recs. 5 & 6 the WT should prioritize for completion and how to do so – 10 min.
- Access the WT C Simplified At-Large Improvements Outline directly or via the WT C Workspace.
Cheryl: The purpose of this agenda point on the agenda of each of the Improvements WTs is to focus the WT on the review and actual implementation of the sub-tasks under each recommendation. While that is the mandate, some of the other WTs have leaned toward revisiting the wisdom of the recommendations, rather than implementing the recommendations given to them. For the most part, though, this hasn’t been the problem of this WT.
Olivia: Let me suggest that each WT C member, before our next meeting, examine the sub-tasks under Recs. 5 and 6 and come prepared to discuss them in terms of which might be deleted, what should be added, and which can be chosen to quickly implement – and how to do so – as “quick wins.”
>> AI: Each WT C member to examine, before the next WT meeting on 9 Nov, the subtasks under Recs. 5 and 6 and come prepared to discuss:
- Which subtasks, if any, could be deleted;
- What subtasks, if any, should be added; and
- Which subtasks can be chosen to quickly implement – and how to do so – as “quick wins.”
The subtasks can be found here: (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhOqmBdY590QdG0yblZrajFUa2Z5SUVub1M0LWlWdHc&hl=en#gid=18).
Cheryl: And we can start our next agenda with this topic.
7. Any other business - 5 min
Links on WT B Confluence Workspace
During agenda item #3 above, Cheryl introduced the point that the links and other aspects regarding the WT B Confluence Workspace were not working.
Cheryl: …the links on the WT B Confluence page are quite broken and need to be fixed. I can not even add a new page. It’s a problem of the permission, since Heidi and Seth can add pages, but members of the Community can not.
>> AI: Seth to follow up with Naveed giving editing permission on WT B’s Confluence Workspace to all Community members on the team.
8. Confirmation of next meeting: Tue, 9 Nov 2010, at 20:00 UTC – 5 min.
This meeting day and time were agreed upon.
The meeting was adjourned.
__________________________________________________________________
Following is the list Cheryl placed in the AC Room’s pod 4 of points from the old SWOT analysis cited in Olivier’s e-mail to WT C on strategic planning:
SWOT Analysis
For Recommendations 5 and 6
Strengths
****
Strategic Strengths
-Global regional outreach
- Global dissemination using ALSes
- ALAC represents a large number of end users – Voices of users;
- ALAC is a multidisciplinary, multicultural, multilingual team;
- ALAC is part of ICANN’s bottomup and MSP process;
- ALAC is opened towards finding solutions;
- ALAC interacts directly with RALOs and
ALSs;
Energy, quality of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Operational
- Great regional potential;
+++++++++++++++++++++
Budget
- ALAC is a funded
Body;- Staff resources;
+++++++++
Weaknesses
-Global regional outreach
- Global dissemination using ALSes
Opportunities
Threats
