Page History

WT B MINUTES:  1 DECEMBER

Participants:  Annalisa Roger, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Sébastien Bachollet, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Wolf Ludwig, Michel Tchonang

Apologies:  Fouad Bajwa, Gareth Shearman, Yaovi Atohoun, Baudouin Schombe

Absent:  Darlene A. Thompson, Gordon Chillcott, Carlos Aguirre, Antonio Medina Gómez, Moataz Shaarawy

Staff: Seth Greene

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min.

2.  Review of AIs from 17 Nov 2010 meeting – 5 min

a)  Seth to give co-chairs of WT B the Cartagena PPT slide template -- for (a) the ALAC & Regional Leadership Session I on Sunday and (b) the ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Meeting on Thursday in Cartagena -- and inform them that, in the latter, they can use no more than 3 slides and will have 7 minutes to present.  Cheryl’s recommendation:  Do the same with each of the 4 Improvements WTs.

• Status:  Will be done today.  The slide templates revised by Cheryl will be sent around.

b)  Dev to raise the topic of giving each ALS its own Confluence page with LACRALO.

• Status:  Will be done before Cartagena.  Dev does not expect any ALS to oppose.

c)  Darlene to raise the topic of giving each ALS its own Confluence page with NARALO.

• Status:  Darlene has sent an e-mail proposing the idea and opening discussion on it to NARALO.
  

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Task-by-task discussion of Recs. 3, 4, 7, and 9 to identify “quick wins” to be reported in Cartagena, as well as tasks to be edited, deleted, and added – 40 min. 

• Use WT B At-Large Simplified Improvements Outline.
• Reference:  See the preliminary discussions in meetings on 17 Nov (agenda item 3) and 3 Nov (agenda item 6).
  
  

REC 3: The ALS-RALO-ALAC structure of At-Large should remain in place for the present.

• Overall status:  Almost complete.  Next step is to complete task 3.1.3. (see below).
  

3.1        Ensure existing structure does not present obstacles to community operation and development

• Status:  Completed.  See 3.1.1 below.  See the analysis in the ALS Survey Draft Report (Dec 2010) and ALS Survey Presentation (June 2010).
  

The ALS Survey asked the ALSes to identify problems they perceive; its full results and analysis were reported in Brussels.  The Survey team will be reporting separately in Cartagena.

Particularly relevant to Rec. 3 here is Q12 (Scale of 1 to 5, how well is your ALS integrated in the overall ALAC/RALO/ALS policy structure?) and Q13 (What are the most important limitations to ALS participation?). 

The answers to these questions revealed, among other things, that the ALSes feel isolated from the overall At-Large structure.  As a solution to this, the WT recommends that the ALAC ensure that the large amount of At-Large information already available is organized properly so as to be more easily found.

3.1.1     Review information flow between three tiers of At-Large structure (ALS-RALO-ALAC) to identify possible improvements to information dissemination

• Status:  Completed. 
  

The Survey’s Q13 (What are the most important limitations to ALS participation?) asked about barriers to participation and information flow.

The Survey’s Q5 (What communication tools are used by ALSes?) is also relevant, determining the exact order of usage of various major communication tools.

Regarding the identification of possible improvements to information dissemination:

• The WT has been looking at information tools that can assist communication/collaboration (see Rec. 7 discussion below) and is recommending that the ALAC introduce and train the ALSes in the use of various tools – for example: 
  • Posterous, the automatic simultaneous posting tool (see http://posterous.com/help/autopost).  Posterous would allow the local regions to choose their own communication and collaboration tools and would allow us to push information into their chosen space and vice versa.
  • iEtherPad, the document collaboration and sharing tool (see http://ietherpad.com/).
• At-Large has almost completed introducing the use of the Confluence wiki within the ALAC and At-Large Staff (see http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/).  Shortly it will be rolled out to other groups within ICANN.
• The WT is recommending that each ALS get its own Confluence page (as a place for information exchange in both directions).
  • Plus, Confluence has many useful plug-ins geared toward communication and collaboration.
• A possible improvement would come from promoting the use of the communication tools that At-Large already has.  For example, the WT has identified that the ALAC and RALO leadership frequently use the At-Large Calendar as an information source (it contains much meeting information), but the ALSes use it much less frequently.
  

>>  AI:  Seth to create a WT B collaborative Confluence page on which members can suggest (a) communication/collaboration and (b) translation tools – with urls – to be rolled out to the At-Large Community.

3.1.2     Review information flow between the At-Large structure (ALS-RALO-ALAC) and individual Internet users/members of the ALSes to identify possible improvements to information dissemination

• Status:  Completed.
  

See minutes on task 3.1.1. above.  All minutes/notes above apply equally to task 3.1.2., as well.

3.1.3     Given results of 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, implement any useful improvements

• Status:  Almost completed.
  

Next step is to create and distribute a brief orientation/instruction package to the communication and collaboration tools that WT B is suggesting the ALSes begin using.

REC 4: Educating and engaging the ALSes should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer-term goal.

• Status:  Partially completed (well underway).  Of course, education (like engagement and recruitment) will be an ongoing activity, never actually “completed.”
  

4.1        Education

•             Status:  Partially completed (well underway).
  

Two primary educational tools aimed at the ALSes that have been developed are:

• ICANN’s E-Learning Web Page (see link below)
  

ICANN’s E-Learning Web Page can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/learning/.

• The series of At-Large and Regional Brochures, in multiple, relevant languages (see links below)

The entire series of At-Large and RALO Brochures can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+and+RALO+Brochures.  The individual links for each brochure follow:

At-Large Brochure - EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/whatis.htm
At-Large Brochure - FR http://www.atlarge.icann.org/fr/whatis-fr.htm
At-Large Brochure - ES http://www.atlarge.icann.org/es/whatis-es.htm

AFRALO Brochure - EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/afralo/outreach-materials
AFRALO Brochure - FR http://www.atlarge.icann.org/fr/afralo/outreach-materials-fr  

APRALO Brochure - EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/apralo/outreach-materials-en.htm

EURALO Brochure - EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/euralo/outreach-materials-en.htm
 

LACRALO Brochure -EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo/outreach-materials-en.htm  
LACRALO Brochure - ES http://www.atlarge.icann.org/es/lacralo/outreach-materials-es.htm
LACRALO Brochure - PR http://www.atlarge.icann.org/LACRALO-brochure-pt.pdf

NARALO Brochure - EN http://www.atlarge.icann.org/naralo/outreach-materials-en.htm
NARALO Brochure - FR http://www.atlarge.icann.org/fr/naralo/outreach-materials-fr  
NARALO Brochure - ES http://www.atlarge.icann.org/es/naralo/outreach-materials-es

WT B suggestions regarding the overall At-Large and RALO Brochures [must confirm this with call recording once available; it sounded as though the document for which these suggestions were made might have been the “multi-something,” but the name was not easily heard]:

• Give the regions fewer pages to go through.  One way of doing this would be to use more targeted, relevant links.
• Do not give each region a lot of material on the other regions.  Instead, can just give the links to other regions.
  

WT B suggestions regarding educational materials generally:

• All educational material need not be in hardcopy (paper) form or on the Web; must determine which is more strategic.
• Educational material covering the At-Large structure and ICANN does need to be online.  At present, this information – like much of our educational material – is not easily found or consolidated in one place.
  

4.1.1     Develop high-level principles to guide development of an external education campaign

• Status:  Almost completed.
  

4.1.2     After 4.1.1 principles are approved, draw up plan with specific deliverables consistent with these principles

• Status:  Almost completed.  See discussion above re task 4.1. Education and elsewhere.
  

4.1.3     Once 4.1.2 plan is approved, implement plan

• Status:  Still to do.
  

4.1.4     Use any appropriate educational resources developed by Policy staff or elsewhere in ICANN to supplement At-Large plan

• Partially completed (underway).
  

Tasks 4.1.4. and 4.3. deal with – or should be expanded to deal with – outside educational resources and partners.

>>  AI:  Seth to add to the action items within tasks 4.1.4. and 4.3., in Simplified Improvements Outline, that the WT is or should be looking for synergies with outside resources and partners (such as DiploFoundation).

Wolf Ludwig suggests that At-Large partners with DiploFoundation (see http://www.diplomacy.edu/), which offers classes and a set of Internet governance materials.  Wolf himself teaches for DiploFoundation.  He volunteered to discuss with DiploFoundation the prospect of working/partnering with At-Large.  The result could be DiploFoundation’s offering such courses to the ALSes.  There are ICANN Fellows who have had experience with DiploFoundation; ICANN supports DiploFoundation, and Global Partnerships is aware of it.

WT B suggests that ICANN’s work with DiploFoundation be more integrated within the regions.

>>  AI:  Wolf to discuss with DiploFoundation the prospect of working/partnering with At-Large (including the possibility of offering classes to ALSes).

4.2        Engagement

•             Status:  Partially completed (well underway).
  

See discussion above under task 4.1. Education.

4.2.1     Develop high-level principles to guide development of an internal engagement campaign

4.2.2     Once 4.2.1 principles are approved, draw up plan with specific deliverables consistent with these principles

4.2.3     Once 4.2.2 plan is approved, implement plan

4.3        Outreach and recruitment

Tasks 4.1.4. and 4.3. deal with – or should be expanded to deal with – outside educational resources and partners.

See the above discussion under task 4.1.4 regarding DiploFoundation, along with Wolf’s AI.

4.3.1     Outreach and recruitment to increase At-Large community size and diversity

4.3.1.1  Design an outreach and recruitment strategy for At-Large

4.3.2     Outreach messaging about ICANN's activities to individual Internet users

4.3.3     Design a process that ensures information about issues being dealt with by the ICANN community can be easily understood by individual Internet users.

4.3.4     "Recommend to RALOs that they formalize outreach/”inreach” role within their structures however each finds appropriate (e.g., by including the role in the RALO’s rules of procedure).

4.4        Explore whether additional measures need be taken to involve individual Internet users in At-Large work, where they wish to contribute in their personal capacities

4.5        Leadership engagement and development

Cheryl:  This involves our own revision process and control.  What we have not done is effective outreach and inreach programs.  But we can look at this in short order.

4.5.1     Create job descriptions for ALAC members, liaisons, and other leaders that include qualification requirements, responsibilities, and objective criteria to evaluate performance

4.5.2     Create and implement a sanctions process for nonperformance

4.5.3     4.5.2 sanctions process should make travel support unavailable to nonperforming ALAC leaders

4.5.4     ALAC and the NomCom jointly to decide on process(es) for midterm replacement both of NomCom appointments to ALAC and of ALAC appointments to the NomCom, where required

Cheryl:  This deals with the ALAC and NomCom interaction.  The work on this has been going on through the last three heads of the NomCom, including Adam as the third now.  The NomCom mechanisms do not meet the ALAC’s needs.  For example, the ALAC can not recall people in its seats who unfortunately do nothing and can not sanction them.  At present, the ALAC is writing to the NomCom again about the type of individuals that the ALAC needs.  Unfortunately, never have all three of the NomCom-selected seats been well-performing members at the same time.  The new NomCom Chair (Adam) has just asked for this to be reviewed, so it will be happening in 1Q2011.

4.5.4.1  Implementation of 4.5.4 agreed-upon process(es)

4.5.5     Present finalized results from 4.5.2, 4.5.3, and 4.5.4 for Board approval

4.6        Compliance

REC 7: ALAC should choose the communication and collaborative tools to best meet its needs, considering budgetary constraints and technologies already used throughout ICANN.

• Status:  Almost completed.  See meeting minutes of WT B’s last meeting on 17 November and of today’s meeting on 1 December.
  

7.1        Review of communication and collaboration needs considered unmet by ALSes and RALOs globally

• Status:  Completed.  See discussion under tasks 3.1, 3.1.1, and 3.1.2 above.  See the analysis in the ALS Survey Draft Report (Dec 2010) and ALS Survey Presentation (June 2010).
  

7.2        Review of technologies already used by At-Large and across ICANN that could fill all or some of the 7.1 needs of the ALSes and RALOs

WT B is suggesting, for example, Posterous, the automatic simultaneous posting tool (see http://posterous.com/help/autopost). 

7.2.1     Consideration of effects of technologies identified in 7.2 on accessibility issues

WT B has considered various technologies, including Posterous, the automatic simultaneous posting tool (see http://posterous.com/help/autopost). 

7.2.2     Cost/benefit analysis of expanding the use of the technologies identified in 7.2 to fill all or some of the needs of the ALSes and RALOs

7.2.3     Create implementation plan for the expanded use, as needed, of certain technologies identified in 7.2 that meet ICANN's budgetary requirements

7.2.4     Implement 7.2.3 plan

7.3        Review of currently available technologies not already used by At-Large or elsewhere in ICANN that could fill the 7.1 needs of the ALSes and RALOs

• Status:  Completed.  See discussion under 3.1.1 above.
  

7.3.1     Consideration of effects of technologies identified in 7.2 on accessibility issues

7.3.2     Cost/benefit analysis of using the new technologies identified in 7.3 to fill all or some of the needs of the ALSes and RALOs

7.3.3     Create implementation plan for use, as needed, of certain technologies identified in 7.2 that meet ICANN's budgetary requirements

7.3.4     Implement 7.3.3 plan

7.4        Create implementation plan for training ICANN's IT Support in the 7.3.2 technologies (and, as needed, in keeping IT Support current in 7.2.2 and 7.3.2 technologies)

7.4.1     Implement 7.4 plan

7.5        Based on At-Large's choice of communication and collaboration tools to best fill its needs, make recommendations for use, or not, of these tools across ICANN

7.6        Create implementation plan for the periodic identification of technologies, either newly introduced to the market or updated, that can better fill the 7.1 needs of the ALSes and RALOs than those technologies currently being used

• Status:  Complete
  

See discussion from WT B 17 November meeting that follows.

Gordon:  Let’s look at the last task under Rec. 7.  Regarding the period review of technology, I’d like to suggest a schedule of every 18 months.  This is out of my experience in doing such reviews.  My thinking is this.  Many tools bubble up but then disappear.  Similarly, some solutions become popular but then collapse.  One wants to space technology reviews, I’ve learned, far enough apart that you end up only picking tools that have, in fact, proven to have staying power, a reliable backing, etc.

Cheryl:  I like the idea of having a set schedule, as long as we add the qualifier “unless otherwise required due to need.”

Dev:  Are there any objections to the WT’s proposing that, under Rec. 7, we recommend a technology review every 18 months unless otherwise required sooner due to need?

No objections were heard. 

7.6.1     Implement 7.6 plan

REC 9: ICANN should strengthen its translation and interpretation processes.

• Overall status:  Almost complete.
  

Next steps:  Ongoing vigilance to ensure that Language Services follow through with agreements and new Translation Policy.

9.1        Interim measures (near term)

Sebastien:  We need new tools for translations.  The ones At-Large currently uses are inadequate, resulting in much misinterpretation.  This is obvious to anyone who actually knows the languages between which the translations are done.

9.1.1     Propose any near-term modifications to processes necessary for increased policy engagement dependent upon availability of translations

9.2        Adoption of Translation Policy

9.2.1     Staff to review draft document and determine if additional modifications are necessary and if Board approval is necessary (versus implementation done directly as administrative matter)

9.3        Implementation of Translation Policy

4.  Any other business -- 5 min.

No other business was introduced.

5.  Confirmation of next meeting:  Wed, 15 Dec, 2010 at 13:00 UTC – 5 min.

The next meeting was confirmed on this day and time.

The meeting was adjourned.