Page History
In this version (ver 2) of the SWOT, the input :
- The input from WT C has been consolidated and reorganized.
- A numbering/lettering system has been added to allow for the easy identification of the individual points.
Note: This is not the version of the SWOT in which WT C members should be adding new data. To add new data, please see version 1 of the SWOT.
...
A. Strategic planning (related to Rec. 5)
Strengths | ||||||||
\[What is? At-Large?\] | ||||||||
Wiki Markup | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\[Should this be under operational? It's strength of operational processes, right?\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Suggestion: At-Large, as ICANN's conscience, brings unique considerations to strategic planning\] |
A.W - WEAKNESSES
A.W.1 Weaknesses
- Specific details of At-Large strategy are not well defined or easily understood
A.W.2 - Translations:
1. Number is limited
2. Delays exist
A.W.3 - Lack of clear strategic targets for the whole At-Large community (ALSes, RALOs, and ALAC)
Opportunities A.O - OPPORTUNITIES
A.O.1 - Ability to feed local and global issues into ICANN strategy
A.O.2 - Very powerful communication channel
A.O.3 - Useful tool for ICANN outreach
A.O.4 - Local ALSes can help with local events (i.e., act as liaisons to local stakeholders)
A.O.5 - Developing countries and emerging economies provide many prospects
A.O.6 - Opportunity exists to create a roadmaproad-map, based on alternative on various scenarios, for At-Large's future
(OCL: alternative's the wrong word. use "various" ? I'd like to think that we can establish more than one scenario & use them, or a combination of them, to write one roadmap.) Wiki Markup \[Is "based on alternative scenarios" (stated in meeting) needed?\]
- At-Large should be used more as a strategic resource by ICANN Wiki Markup \[Are the next two pts too redundant? Should they be combined?:\]
- The potential exists for better understanding with ICANN Strategy team
(OCL:OK - suggest replacing above 2 lines with:
future
A.O.7 - A better understanding between At-Large and the ICANN Strategy team could lead to increased use of At-Large as a strategic resource the latter.) - Seth - any suggested word-smithing?
- Public Participation should be strengthened, so as to be more related to At-Large, by staff and Board (public participation committee) Wiki Markup \[Unclear. Is first Public Participation here the Committee? Seems to be, since capitalized. Then why is the committe in parens, but not capitalized? Please clarify. And be sure to capitalize where you mean the committee only \-\- Public Participation Committee\]
(OCL: noted: My take on this is:
- Public participation should be strengthened, by integrating the strategy of the Board's Public Participation Committee with At-Large processes, with staff in full synchronization.
a strategic resource for ICANN
A.O.8 - Public participation could be strengthened by integrating the Public Participation Committee's strategy with At-Large 's processes, facilitated by Staff
A.O.9 - Consultation and coordination between RALOs should be strengthened
Threats A.T - THREATS
A.T.1 - Lack of funding limits outreach
A.T.2 - Lack of volunteers reduces time spent on strategic issues
A.T.3 - Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN Wiki Markup
\[Should it say what this could do/risk?\]
- A.T.4 - Loss of ICANN credibility if At-Large does not grow
A.T.5 - If bottom-up process is broken or At-Large strategy is not considered:
1. Loss of local support
2. Loss of stakeholder input
- Competition
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Seems as though this should be heading for below; if so, pls number pts. below in usual format\] |
- A.T.6 - ICANN's control by government-led agencies
A.T.7 - Competition / Another from another agency similar to ICANN
A.T.8 - International pressure limits ICANN's revenue
...
B. Operational planning (related to Rec. 5)
Strengths | |||||
\[No longer under Stategic Planning. In meeting, decided to move from there to here.\] | Weaknesses | ||||
\[Why was "maturity" capitalized?\] | |||||
B.O - OPPORTUNITIES | |||||
\[Why was "maturity" capitalized?\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Unclear due to word "for." Suggestion: Operating plan is a useful step in preparing an accurate budget. Also, do you mean At-Large operating plan?\] |
B.O.4 - Use At-Large's ability to abilities and reach could be used to convey ICANN's message locally
\[What about it? How is it an opportunity?\]
- B.O.5 - At-Large could incorporate public participation into ICANN's operarional planning
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[You do NOT mean Public Participation Committee here, do you?\] |
B.O.6 - At-Large comments, as result of consensus-based process, should be considered by ICANN Board and staff
- Actions proposed B.O.7 - Plans (such as a Second At-Large Summit or RALO GAs) proposed by At-Large should be considered by ICANN
\[What kinds of actions? Pt. right above refers to policy advice\]
- Lack of means
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Unclear. "Means"? Suggestion: Lack of funding \-\- and then state what it risks\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Could do what?\] |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[Could do what related to operational planning?\] |
B.T - THREATS
B.T.1 - Lack of resources (including operational funding, staff headcount, translation services, Web services, conference-call services, other daily logistical needs, etc.)
B.T.2 - Less operational effectiveness and visibility leading to a lack of volunteer interest
B.T.3 - Lack of volunteers would limit operational planning and capabilities
C. Budget (related to Rec. 6)
Strengths | ||
\[Budgeting requirements?\] | ||
Wiki Markup | Weaknesses | |
---|---|---|
C.O - OPPORTUNITIES Opportunities | Threats |