Page History

Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear.

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

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

(AC) Agree.

1. Nov 2018 convene analysis and review of issue and status of improvements to date micro-team with staff allocated, penholders for this issue <insert link to wiki page> and ARIWG member volunteers as desired.
2. Identify the specifics of processes and practices used to date.
3. Identification of opportunities for process improvement or modification
4. Development of proposal for reenvisioning any processes and practices to be discussed by ALAC / At-Large and those utilising ALAC advice.
5. Documentation process renewal proposal as agreed and prioritised developed into a project plan. Noting which milestones are intended to be reached by Dec 2019, and what is to be undertaken under review and continuous improvement planning.
6. (HM) logging why we decide to comment or not comment on a certain topic and its relevance to end users
   
   
   

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

1. Continue and expand the development of webinars to educate the at-large community on the policy considerations of the ICANN community
2. Draw a bright line distinction between individual and at-large policy advice
3. Ensure that at-large representatives to WGs and PDPs are aware of and clear on those distinctions when speaking for the at-large
4. Reimagine the process of advice prioritization by
   
   1. Focusing on the perspective of the typical end user (as defined by activities not specific groups of end users)
   2. Being disciplined NOT to develop advice when there is no unique "end user" perspective to bring to the discussion (like an amicus brief)
   3. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn make recommendations to the community on prioritization
   4. Seek feedback from regional leaders on prioritization advice
5. Reimagine the process of advice/policy development by
   1. Using the CWPG to formulate an initial perspective on a particular ICANN policy area
   2. Use the regional leaders to socialize and receive feedback on that perspective
   3. only THEN identify a pen holder to draft advice from THAT perspective
   4. finally, submit that draft for open comment by the at-large community
6. Reimagine the participation of non-English speakers in at-large policy/advice development by
   1. Continue to develop "issue briefs" in multiple languages to assist in education of non-English speakers
   2. Employ simultaneous translation on CPWG calls
   3. Continue and expand staff use as proofreaders for non-English fluent drafters before drafts are made public
   4. Employee translators for drafts drafted in a language other than English

1. Number of advice drafts that result from this process (as opposed to the current process of random volunteers)
2. Number of attempts to get feedback of the larger community
3. Quantity of respondents to attempts to seek feedback
4. Number of at-large community participants in policy/advice development
5. Number of non-fluent English speakers engaged in policy/advice development
   
   

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

(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.

(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

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

(JC) I think there

(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.

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

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

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

(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

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.

1. (JC) Performance review

(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. 

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

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.

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. or meetings and outcomes of each WG meeting
9. Ensure that staff record the Working Groups that are currently active on the At-Large website with links to each WG wiki page
10. 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)
11. Establish a wiki page for the O&E WG and the outcomes of their monthly meetings (including ATLASIII WGs)

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

13. 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.

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

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