AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

 

 

Versions Compared

Old Version 111

changes.mady.by.user Heidi Ullrich

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Ricardo Holmquist

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

To access the Issue you would like to view, click the Toggle cloak >  You will see that a demonstration model Item #1 has been started. But this is only draft and for demonstration purposes only.Edit (above)

Issues #1 - #16:

Please note issues committed to by the ALAC and approved by the Board are highlighted in green.

...

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #1

Lead: Jonathan Zuck


Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

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.

Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority)
ARIWG comments

(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.

Status of improvement effort / staff leadAlready underway, continuous improvement to continue / HU; EE
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?ICANN Staff in conjunction with ALAC/At-Large Leadership
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Staff up to 0.2 FTEs in Dec 2018 through to Dec 2019
Expected budget implicationsNothing additional beyond already allocated resources to At-Large.

Proposed implementation steps:

  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)

Continuous Improvement(s)
  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
Metrics
  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

How long will it take to implement this plan?

...

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box.

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered.

1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications?

2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not?

3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done?

4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.
Issue #2At-Large has struggled to reflect/process end-user opinion; barriers to individual participation; perception of unchanging leadership group.(JC: is this the correct issue statement? Thank you Justine.. yes this has now been inserted correctly)

Final Proposal as approved by the Board

Lead: Bastiaan Goslings

At-Large is increasingly focusing on individuals (both unaffiliated At-Large Members as well as members within
each ALS) instead of just ALS voting representatives. Four of the five (RALOs) allow individual members and the fifth, LACRALO, has already approved the concept and is developing the detailed rules. We will also use the ALSes to communicate with those within an ALS who may have an interest in ICANN.

RALOs have also started to identify experts on ICANN topics within their ALSes and among individual members and to increasingly engage them in ALAC’s policy work. Thus, a bi-directional flow of ICANN information continues to be strengthened.

These activities will require the production of information that is truly understandable (as identified in a recent ALAC-GAC Joint Statement) and available in multiple languages. As some of this will need to be created by At-Large staff, additional resources may be needed. We would suggest that At-Large Staff continue to work together with At-Large Leadership in looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders to facilitate the development of their skills and encourage them to stay and deepen their knowledge and expertise. Regarding the perception of unchanging leadership, statistics reporting involvement will be published

Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments

(MH) Do we need to review our application forms for ALSes and Individual members to ensure that we have active participants in our At-Large activities? Otherwise we are planning to put an inordinate amount of work in to reach whom we assume are potential participants who aren't actually there. In APRALO we have 20 names of which only about 3 or 4 are active. I never see others at our meetings etc, so why do they join? are they participating in ICANN Learn?

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered. 1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications? 2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not? 3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done? 4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

(JH) We also need to clearly indicate that in an ALS we can have many active people from one ALS. Previously there was hesitancy to give out confluence accounts to more than the main and alternate rep.

(NA for Nadira) I could see two fold of the “Outreach an Engagement”, Outreach is one and Engagement is two.  Handling the Outreach, RALOs with its community of active ALSes to take part of the outreach within their ALSes members and to their wider community. 

(NA) Awareness programs of at-large and ALAC work comes before any community members to start in policy engagements.

(NA) Create a system of shadow mentor to those who wanted to get directly into policy work.  

(MM for M. Moll) I agree with Nadira. Outreach and engagement are very different things. And I would also say that sometimes it takes a long time till outreach becomes engagement when speaking of individuals. People go through different life stages and it is only at some points that people can actually fit something like engagement in ICANN into their lives. So, being too restrictive on criteria could actually cut out some potential contributors.

Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation(JC) Baseline standardization of RALO membership criteria and application process (including assessment), subject to the remits of ICANN Bylaws applicable to ALAC.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?(JC) ALAC, RALO LT, AT-Large Staff
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

Continuous Improvement(s)MetricsHow long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
Toggle Cloak


(Satish) Here are a few comments to start off discussions (moved here from the original location):


a. Take proactive measures to facilitate and encourage participation from ALSes as well as individual members


  • Evolve a system to better integrate/engage the four categories of people who are currently part of community mailing lists: (a) ALS leaders; (b) ALS Members; (c) Individual members; and (d) Observers. We may be able to provide different services customized for each of these categories. For instance, ALS Leaders may be active during participation, but get disconnected after they move out of their positions, and we may want their continued participation. Similarly, observers may need help to promote them to individual members.
  • Remove deadwood from RALO mailing lists through an appropriate process such as an explicit "opt-in". Similarly, dormant ALSes can be decertified after a due process.
  • Use social media tools creatively to engage members
  • Provide capacity-building measures during ATLAS/GAs, and also by co-ordinating with national/regional Schools of Internet Governance (SIGs)


b. Remove elements that cause "friction" in participation


  • Overcoming language barriers that may cause gaps in understanding
  • Providing editorial services for potential pen-holders
  • Ensuring that seemingly-formidable barriers such as time-zone for calls are softened by practices such as call rotation


c. Revitalize the At-Large Community


  • Volunteer fatigue could be a factor that limits participation. Consider ways to overcome inertia, fatigue and indifference, perhaps by rallying the community around a common issue
  • Project the renewed vision of "At-Large 2.0" that would help to mobilize and revitalize the community


Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation(JC) Baseline standardization of RALO membership criteria and application process (including assessment), subject to the remits of ICANN Bylaws applicable to ALAC.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?(JC) ALAC, RALO LT, AT-Large Staff
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box.

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered.

1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications?

2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not?

3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done?

4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

MH: Collect data on end users.

CLO: Peer-to-peer support / mentorship activity.

AG: post link from prior report highlighting prior focus on these steps.

Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics

(HM)The changes made to improve the barriers to individual participation

(HM)RALOs contributions to the statements and opinions posted by the ALAC

How long will it take to implement this plan?


ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
Toggle Cloak


Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #3

Lead: Holly Raiche


Staff resources are disproportionately concentrated on administrative support. Staff should have greater capacity to support preparation of policy advice.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
Continue to look for opportunities to utilize and develop the skills of At-Large support staff while ensuring that the positions taken by At-Large represent solely those of users. Ensure that the volunteer community has sufficient support services so as to best utilize their volunteer time. This may require a shift or development of skills among At-Large Staff as well as additional staff.
Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments
Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #3

Lead: Holly Raiche

  1. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
  2. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
  3. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
  4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
  5. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
  6. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
  7. (JC) Performance review

8. (NA) A targeted policy development training program to at-large staff goes hand-in hand with at-large community development or capacity building program. Reasoning the peer learning and discussions enhances the learning.  

9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure.

10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members

11. (JH) Staff should take notes and summarize the discussion connected with each agenda item in a meeting

  • (HM) ALAC internal review about the role of the staff in policy making in the past
  • (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
  • (HM) Consider having one of the staff dedicated to policy issues
    • (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinarsContinuous Improvements)
    Staff resources are disproportionately concentrated on administrative support. Staff should have greater capacity to support preparation of policy advice.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		Continue to look for opportunities to utilize and develop the skills of At-Large support staff while ensuring that the positions taken by At-Large represent solely those of users. Ensure that the volunteer community has sufficient support services so as to best utilize their volunteer time. This may require a shift or development of skills among At-Large Staff as well as additional staff.
    Prioritization3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
    ARIWG commentsStatus of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?

    (JC) ICANN Org for HR aspects, ALAC for actual implementation, with supervision also provided under CPWG leadership (or any other WG dealing with ALAC policy)

    (HM) with supervision provided by the implementation working group of the ALAC

    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:

    1. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
    2. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
    3. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
    4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
    5. (JC) Consider capacity knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
    6. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
    7. (JC) Performance review

    8. (

    Metrics
    1. (JC) Performance review
    How long will it take to implement this plan?

    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4
    Toggle Cloak

    ...

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue #4

    Lead: Maureen Hilyard

    ...

    Final Proposal as approved by the Board

    ...

    This leadership model has been developed by the incoming Chair to offer a visual representation of the new At-Large Leadership Team (ALT), as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. The ALT now includes Regional Leaders, to encourage more interaction between the ALAC and the leaders of our regional member organisations. The objective is also to ensure that decisions and other important messages from the ICANN Board (through our At-Large Board representative) and from other constituencies of ICANN (through the ALAC Liaisons) are relayed more directly to Regional Leaders and will more easily filter to the At-Large Community through RALO meetings and outreach and engagement opportunities. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position.

    (NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf

    (NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.

    ...

    Introduction of the organigram to all the members to get buy in to the organisational model and the purposes behind making the information more transparent. This is proposed to take place during the Development Session of the ALAC , Regional Leaders and Liaisons which will be held at the conclusion of ICANN63 in Barcelona. This session will also give implementation issue teams a chance to discuss their plans for the items they have been assigned, with each other and to get feedback Other organisational teams (CPWG and O&E leads will be able to share some goals and objectives for their working teams during 2019, especially as we lead up to ATLASIII.

    ...

    Proposed implementation steps:

    ...

    Many of the issues raised have already been addressed in some way by the Incoming Chair. The following steps have been covered:

    1. An Organigram has been developed to show a new At-Large Leadership model that is more inclusive and collaborative, as well as being more transparent and accountable. 

    2. The Organigram demonstrates how leadership roles are dispersed among ALAC and Regional Leaders, as well as to key leads who take responsibility for the core tasks of At-Large - namely, Development of Policy Advice; Outreach and Engagement; and Organisational Matters 

    3. Regional Leaders  have been incorporated into what is now the At-Large Leadership Team to enable them to share in ALAC discussions about key issues, and then to share any key messages with their regional members.

    4. At-Large Leadership team meetings will be open to the ALAC and the public unless there are specific, usually personnel, issues to be discussed (as per any ALAC meeting). These matters will be discussed in camera.

    5. A specific page on the At-Large Website will display the organigram which will be regularly updated with regards to current Working Groups and appointees to various roles that are allocated by the vote of the ALAC.

    6. Roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership within At-Large will be more clearly defined on a page set aside for this purpose on the website, and available to all.

    7. Staff will be assigned to the steps #5 and #6 as per Implementation Task #1 which is related to At-Large Wikis and the Website, and the work of At-Large.. 

    (HM)8. ALT is to start making delegations to ALAC members

    ...

    Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place

    ...

    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5

    Toggle Cloak

    ...

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue #5

    Lead: Tijani Ben Jemaa

    ...

    To the extent allowed by ICANN’s mission and available funding, members of At-Large and the At-Large organizations will continue to, and potentially increase, our involvement with other I* organizations as a method for increasing the visibility of At-Large, exploring areas for mutual collaboration and for attracting additional At-Large volunteers.

    At-Large will continue to work closely with GSE Staff to contribute to regional outreach plans and to encourage participation in a cross-community, cross-organizational fashion.

    ...

    NA) A targeted policy development training program to at-large staff goes hand-in hand with at-large community development or capacity building program. Reasoning the peer learning and discussions enhances the learning.  

    9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure.

    10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members

    11. (JH) Staff should take notes and summarize the discussion connected with each agenda item in a meeting

    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?

    (JC) ICANN Org for HR aspects, ALAC for actual implementation, with supervision also provided under CPWG leadership (or any other WG dealing with ALAC policy)

    (HM) with supervision provided by the implementation working group of the ALAC

    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
    Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:

    1. (HM) ALAC internal review about the role of the staff in policy making in the past
    2. (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
    3. (HM) Consider having one of the staff dedicated to policy issues
    4. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars
    5. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
    6. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
    7. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
    8. JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
    9. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
    10. (JC) Performance review

    HR/HU: Suggests request of 1 FTE to focus on ALS/Individuals and engagement.

    Continuous Improvement(s)


    Metrics
    1. (JC) Performance review
    How long will it take to implement this plan?


    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4
    Toggle Cloak


    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue #4

    Lead: Maureen Hilyard


    		Leadership Team (ALT), which is not mandated by ICANN Bylaws, concentrates in the established leadership too many decision-making and other administrative powers which should be spread among the members of the ALAC.

    Final Proposal as approved by the Board


    		The ALAC Chair will work with members of the ALAC and staff to better communicate the role and activities of the ALT ensuring that it is clear what the ALT does and does not do.
    Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group)
    ARIWG comments

    This leadership model has been developed by the incoming Chair to offer a visual representation of the new At-Large Leadership Team (ALT), as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. The ALT now includes Regional Leaders, to encourage more interaction between the ALAC and the leaders of our regional member organisations. The objective is also to ensure that decisions and other important messages from the ICANN Board (through our At-Large Board representative) and from other constituencies of ICANN (through the ALAC Liaisons) are relayed more directly to Regional Leaders and will more easily filter to the At-Large Community through RALO meetings and outreach and engagement opportunities. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position.

    (NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf

    (NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.

    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation

    Introduction of the organigram to all the members to get buy in to the organisational model and the purposes behind making the information more transparent. This is proposed to take place during the Development Session of the ALAC , Regional Leaders and Liaisons which will be held at the conclusion of ICANN63 in Barcelona. This session will also give implementation issue teams a chance to discuss their plans for the items they have been assigned, with each other and to get feedback Other organisational teams (CPWG and O&E leads will be able to share some goals and objectives for their working teams during 2019, especially as we lead up to ATLASIII.


    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?ICANN Staff in conjunction with the ALAC/At-Large Leadership
    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
    Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:

    Many of the issues raised have already been addressed in some way by the Incoming Chair. The following steps have been covered:

    1. An Organigram has been developed to show a new At-Large Leadership model that is more inclusive and collaborative, as well as being more transparent and accountable. 

    2. The Organigram demonstrates how leadership roles are dispersed among ALAC and Regional Leaders, as well as to key leads who take responsibility for the core tasks of At-Large - namely, Development of Policy Advice; Outreach and Engagement; and Organisational Matters 

    3. Regional Leaders  have been incorporated into what is now the At-Large Leadership Team to enable them to share in ALAC discussions about key issues, and then to share any key messages with their regional members.

    4. At-Large Leadership team meetings will be open to the ALAC and the public unless there are specific, usually personnel, issues to be discussed (as per any ALAC meeting). These matters will be discussed in camera.

    5. A specific page on the At-Large Website will display the organigram which will be regularly updated with regards to current Working Groups and appointees to various roles that are allocated by the vote of the ALAC.

    6. Roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership within At-Large will be more clearly defined on a page set aside for this purpose on the website, and available to all.

    7. Staff will be assigned to the steps #5 and #6 as per Implementation Task #1 which is related to At-Large Wikis and the Website, and the work of At-Large.. 

    (HM)8. ALT is to start making delegations to ALAC members

    Continuous Improvement(s)Staff will update the wiki spaces related to this task regularly as any changes are made to the ALAC and to other personnel and working groups or other activities related to the charts and other information
    Metrics

    Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place

    How long will it take to implement this plan?Implementation will take place immediately after the Barcelona meeting. Once loaded onto the website, it will be updated as required. Ongoing



    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5

    Toggle Cloak


    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    ...

    (MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #12, #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?

    (AC) Agree with Maureen’s comment on metrics. A detailed rubric should be in place.

    (AC) What is the objective of the Capacity Building Program?

    What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

    (NA) Coordination with I* organizations and also with ICANN cross community to conduct outreach and engagement activities, to put a clear objectives and a measurable deliverables to be set in advance.

    (NA) There is also a need to do outreach and engagement within ICANN SOs/ACs, because not all of their members understand At-Large work.

    (JH) ICANN GSE staff should collaborate with local RALOS and ALSes in the region and apprise them of events with Think Tanks, Univeristies, conferences, private sector programs so that local ALSes can participate and conduct outreach and engagement with these groups. Often we find out abou these events after the fact and they are perfect outreach and engagement opportunities that are lost.

    ...

    • Additional travel support over what is currently available
    • More promotional material of better quality

    ...

    Proposed implementation steps:

    ...

    • Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions)
    • Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year
    • Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups

    ...

    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6

    Toggle Cloak

    (NA) Although At-Large LT election process have evolved and enhanced, but there is still need to move beyond the pre-arranged nomination process of the same leadership team changing roles,  because it hinders the introduction of new emerging leaders to come forwards under the perception that everything is set in advance.   

    (NA) A limit on the number of continuous rounds leaders can hold role in the LT. Then call for a certain number of years gap before returning to a new or same role. This will give a chance for new leaders to emerge.  

    (MM) We need to control the revolving door perception while attempting to keep experienced members on board. It is a careful balancing act. Term limits can help. Perhaps some advisor positions or emeritus like they have in universities
    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue #6

    Lead: Sebastien Bachollet

    		Election processes are excessively complex and have been open to allegations of unfairness.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		At-Large will continue to evolve its processes through its bottom-up, consensus based, community deliberations and update as and when needed.
    Prioritization3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority)
    ARIWG comments

    Issue #5

    Lead: Tijani Ben Jemaa


    		Uneven contribution of At-Large to a coordinated ICANN strategy for ‘Outreach and Engagement’. Missed opportunities for coordination with other constituencies and ICANN staff.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board

    To the extent allowed by ICANN’s mission and available funding, members of At-Large and the At-Large organizations will continue to, and potentially increase, our involvement with other I* organizations as a method for increasing the visibility of At-Large, exploring areas for mutual collaboration and for attracting additional At-Large volunteers.

    At-Large will continue to work closely with GSE Staff to contribute to regional outreach plans and to encourage participation in a cross-community, cross-organizational fashion.

    Prioritization2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group)
    ARIWG comments

    (MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #12, #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?

    (AC) Agree with Maureen’s comment on metrics. A detailed rubric should be in place.

    (AC) What is the objective of the Capacity Building Program?

    What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well

    (NA) Coordination with I* organizations and also with ICANN cross community to conduct outreach and engagement activities, to put a clear objectives and a measurable deliverables to be set in advance.

    (NA) There is also a need to do outreach and engagement within ICANN SOs/ACs, because not all of their members understand At-Large work.

    (JH) ICANN GSE staff should collaborate with local RALOS and ALSes in the region and apprise them of events with Think Tanks, Univeristies, conferences, private sector programs so that local ALSes can participate and conduct outreach and engagement with these groups. Often we find out abou these events after the fact and they are perfect outreach and engagement opportunities that are lost.


    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation


    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
    Expected budget implications
    • Additional travel support over what is currently available
    • More promotional material of better quality

    Proposed implementation steps:


    Continuous Improvement(s)
    Metrics
    How long will it take to implement this plan?

    ...

    • Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions)
    • Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year
    • Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups
    How long will it take to implement this plan?


    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6

    Toggle Cloak


    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue

    #7

    #6

    Lead: Sebastien Bachollet


    		Election processes are excessively complex and have been open to allegations of unfairness.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		At-Large will continue to evolve its processes through its bottom-up, consensus based, community deliberations and update as and when needed.
    Prioritization3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority)
    ARIWG comments

    (NA) Although At-Large LT election process have evolved and enhanced, but there is still need to move beyond the pre-arranged nomination process of the same leadership team changing roles,  because it hinders the introduction of new emerging leaders to come forwards under the perception that everything is set in advance.   

    (NA) A limit on the number of continuous rounds leaders can hold role in the LT. Then call for a certain number of years gap before returning to a new or same role. This will give a chance for new leaders to emerge.  

    (MM) We need to control the revolving door perception while attempting to keep experienced members on board. It is a careful balancing act. Term limits can help. Perhaps some advisor positions or emeritus like they have in universities

    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
    Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:


    Continuous Improvement(s)
    Metrics
    How long will it take to implement this plan?


    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7
    Toggle Cloak


    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Javier Rua-JovetHow long will it take to implement this plan?

    Issue #7

    Lead: Javier Rua-Jovet


    		Excessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		The ALAC has begun to review our WGs, ensuring that the ones we have are active and relevant. We have also started the process to revamp our WG web and Wiki presence to ensure that all WGs are properly represented and documented. Groups no longer active will be segregated, but still documented for historical purposes
    Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group)
    ARIWG comments

    (MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice

    (NA) Would be handy to have a one stop shop document  as a wiki page that serve as tool to document all the working groups and their members and process used. This page, will be also good for branching out to the working space or the different resources. 

    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    1. That the ALAC has developed goals and objectives for 2019
    2. That there is a staff member designated to regularly update Working group wikis and the Working Group Website page
    3. That the CPWG wiki page regularly updates issues discussed and progress statements
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?As mentioned above in the general comments, this should be lead by ALAC, and there is also a carpentry work that must be done by staff.  
    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)

    The expected amount of carpentry by staff is very low, just maintain the groups up to date, We should expect less than 10% of one person per month, or 0,1 FTE, if any.

    Expected budget implicationsSo far, this 0,1 FTE, no need for additional software, since it is on the wiki site,

    Proposed implementation steps:

    1. Clarify ALAC focus areas and objectives for 2019
    2. Establish or re-establish working groups that will deal with specific time-framed issues as required (under the management of key stream leaders of Organisation, Policy and O&E streams.
    3. Ensure that staff establish appropriate and updated wiki pages to record WG objectives as well as details or meetings and outcomes of each WG meeting
    4. Ensure that staff record the Working Groups that are currently active on the At-Large website with links to each WG wiki page
    5. Establish a wiki page for the Consolidated Policy Group, to record topics covered at each meeting and a progress statement on each (including the EPDP WG)
    6. Establish a wiki page for the O&E WG and the outcomes of their monthly meetings (including ATLASIII WGs)

    7. Establish a wiki page for the Organisational WGs, and any relevant updates (including ARIWG).

    8. An annual review of the groups and participants should be taken. A half session at the AGM should be dedicated to evaluate the current groups, and its participants. Also, 30 days prior to this date an email should be sent to all At-Large to join this working groups. At this time any “no longer needed” group should be stopped, and just kept the records.

    9. Change the RoP 14.3.2 to include clear rules of termination of the working groups

    10. A person from staff should be clearly indicated as the one in charge to maintain the groups up to date in the wiki site

    Continuous Improvement(s)This is an ongoing work. With the new organization of ALAC, Policy, O&E and Organizational will work as umbrellas of all other working groups.
    MetricsWG pages up to date. Annual review by Cross Policy, Organizational and Outreach and Engagement Heads
    How long will it take to implement this plan?Most of the work was already done in the last year (Mainly in ICANN 60). The remaining process should not take more than 3 months. With the exception of the change of the RoP that should take up to a year.
    Excessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		The ALAC has begun to review our WGs, ensuring that the ones we have are active and relevant. We have also started the process to revamp our WG web and Wiki presence to ensure that all WGs are properly represented and documented. Groups no longer active will be segregated, but still documented for historical purposes
    Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group)
    ARIWG comments

    (MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice

    (NA) Would be handy to have a one stop shop document  as a wiki page that serve as tool to document all the working groups and their members and process used. This page, will be also good for branching out to the working space or the different resources. 

    Status of improvement effort / staff lead
    Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    1. That the ALAC has developed goals and objectives for 2019
    2. That there is a staff member designated to regularly update Working group wikis and the Working Group Website page
    3. That the CPWG wiki page regularly updates issues discussed and progress statements
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:

    1. Clarify ALAC focus areas and objectives for 2019
    2. Establish or re-establish working groups that will deal with specific time-framed issues as required (under the management of key stream leaders of Organisation, Policy and O&E streams.
    3. Ensure that staff establish appropriate and updated wiki pages to record WG objectives as well as details or meetings and outcomes of each WG meeting
    4. Ensure that staff record the Working Groups that are currently active on the At-Large website with links to each WG wiki page
    5. Establish a wiki page for the Consolidated Policy Group, to record topics covered at each meeting and a progress statement on each (including the EPDP WG)
    6. Establish a wiki page for the O&E WG and the outcomes of their monthly meetings (including ATLASIII WGs)
    7. Establish a wiki page for the Organisational WGs, and any relevant updates (including ARIWG)
    Continuous Improvement(s)Metrics


    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8

    Toggle Cloak

    ...

    Cloak

    NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG

    Issue #8

    Lead: John Laprise


    		Social media and other Internet-based tools could be used more effectively, and at minimal cost, to continuously survey and channel end-user input into ICANN policy making processes.
    Final Proposal as approved by the Board
    		We will continue to investigate opportunities to use Social Media and other online tools that prove useful to bring end-users’ voices to ICANN and vice -versa. However, we caution against seeing social media and online tools as a substitute for other means of participation. We are eager to work with ICANN Organization to understand ICANN’s interests in this area, and the tools available to integrate and communicate our work more effectively.
    Prioritization3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority)
    ARIWG comments

    (MH) This item highlights how we can use social media to enhance the work that is being done in O&E, so that some collaboration with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate

    Also to the communication channels item #10, looking at effective ways to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community

    (NA) Social media in ICANN basically used to disseminate updates and it is one direction, however,  having it as a channel for engagement with followers need a dedicated skilled staff/volunteers, the engagement what attracts the right followers.  Again, it is not about the tool, but the type of added value posts that sustain interest in the channel.

    (MM) In reality, most end-users never get near an ICANN process and when they do, the language is so foreign, they might not come back. Some communications experts who can speak about ICANN issues without getting into ICANN language would be really useful.    can speak about ICANN issues without getting into ICANN language would be really useful.    

    Status of improvement effort / staff leadSoMeWG Chair John Laprise has been working with the WG and with staff to develop and implement new community strategies including the use of new tools to improve and grow community engagement. SoMeWG has also worked to develop RALO level SoMe teams to use regionally relevant social media platforms and languages to extend community reach and voice.
    Status of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
    Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?ICANN ORG (staff) is responsible for managing official global ICANN Social Media handles, accounts, and related management tools. ICANN community is responsible for day to day content curation and sharing at the regional level.
    Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
    Expected budget implications

    Proposed implementation steps:


    Continuous Improvement(s)
    MetricsStandard social media engagement engagement metrics with the caveat that social media channels are inherently noisy and derived metrics include significant error.
    How long will it take to implement this plan?In process


    ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9
    Toggle Cloak

    ...