Versions Compared

Old Version 15

changes.mady.by.user Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Seth Greene

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

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)

  (OCL: At-Large)
A.S.9 - At-Large's multi-stakeholder, bottom-up governance transcends operational domain name issues
  (OCL: no, strategically. At-Large looks at the Big Picture)
- At Large is ICANN's conscience

Strengths                                                                           
A.S - STRENGTHS                                                                              

A.S.1 - Membership diversity brings talent
A.S.2 - Regional involvement and balance:
    1.  At-Large outreach is pillar of ICANN's strategic influence in Internet governance
    2.  Involvement of all five RALOs is an asset
    3.  Knowledge of local communities benefits outreach planning
    4.  Knowledge of local actors (e.g., stakeholders, government leaders,
policy makers, regulators) related to ICANN and Internet ecosystem
    5.  Knowledge of possible outreach efforts
    6.  First-hand involvement in Internet governance unrelated to ICANN and domain names
A.S.3 - At-Large strategy is bottom-up and reflects the consensus of many stakeholders
A.S.4 - Current structure and existing processes are in place to avoid capture and allow scalability 
A.S.5 - At-Large, as home of individual Internet users, does not take into account purely commercial or vested individual interests
A.S.6 - Number and diversity of stakeholders are growning growing
A.S.7 - Level of participation by stakeholders is evolving

Wiki Markup
\[Suggestion: is increasing\]
  (OCL: agree)
- A core is increasing
A.S.8 - At-Large is core part of the original ICANN vision
Wiki Markup
\[What is?  At-Large?\]
Wiki Markup
\[Should this be under operational? It's strength of operational processes, right?\]
Wiki Markup
\[Suggestion: At-Large, as ICANN's conscience, brings unique considerations to strategic planning\]
(OCL: agree) A.S.10 - 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 

Wiki Markup
\[Is "based on alternative scenarios" (stated in meeting) needed?\]
  (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
\[Are the next two pts too redundant? Should they be combined?:\]
 - At-Large should be used more as a strategic resource by ICANN
- 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

\[Should it say what this could do/risk?\]
  (OCL: we used to but thought that this speculated on non-At Large actions and the possible list of consequences is very long)
- 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
\[Seems as though this should be heading for below; if so, pls number pts. below in usual format\]
  (indeed - I have integrated it to a point below)
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)

(OCL: OK with that)

(OCL: typo / we were really running out of time)
- B.W.3 - Translations: 
    1.  Number is limited
    2.  Delays exist

  (OCL: typo / we were really running out of time)
- B.O.2 - Use At-Large as a powerful communication channel
- Operating plan could be a useful tool for a well-prepared budget

Strengths                                                                          
B.S - STRENGTHS                                                                          

B.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
B.S.2 - Local organizational knowledge brings unbiased view of operations: 
    1. Lower costs of implementation 
    2. Alerting ICANN to another angle

Wiki Markup
\[Unclear.  Suggestion: Increased ability to change approach when appropriate\]
  (OCL: unsure about your suggestion. Suggest: provide ICANN with local insight
- Local knowledge:
Wiki Markup
\[Must distinguish this heading from similar heading above; both refer to local knowledge; state how second one here is different than above\]
  (OCL: agreed - and I must admit I am stalling on this, so I'd like the input of others, please)Local political insight
B.S.3 - Local community input: 
    1. Grassroots input 
    2. RALO involvement is an asset   
B.S.4 - On-the-ground, workable and well-defined actions 
B.S.5 - At-Large uses electronic tools to bring its members' different backgrounds and expereinces experiences to bear on planning process
Wiki Markup
\[No longer under Stategic Planning.  In meeting, decided to move from there to here.\]

Weaknesses                                                                   
B.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

B.W.1 - At-Large reacts slowly
B.W.2 - At-Large maturity still not completely achieved

Wiki Markup
\[Why was "maturity" capitalized?\]

Opportunities                                                                     B.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                      

B.O.1 - Strengthen maturity of At-Large by improving processes

Wiki Markup
\[Why was "maturity" capitalized?\]
Wiki Markup
\[Unclear due to word "for."  Suggestion:  Operating plan is a useful step in preparing an accurate budget.  Also, do you mean At-Large operating plan?\]
  (OCL: yes + yes -> At-Large Operating plan is a B.O.3 -At-Large operating plan could be a useful step in preparing an accurate budget)
B.O.4 - Use At-Large's ability to abilities and reach could be used to convey ICANN's message locally
Wiki Markup
\[What about it? How is it an opportunity?\]
  (OCL: it is an opportunity because so far, this avenue has not been used by ICANN Staff & Board)
B.O.5 - At-Large could incorporate public participation into ICANN's operarional s operational planning
Wiki Markup
\[You do NOT mean Public Participation Committee here, do you?\]
(OCL: no - it goes further than that)
- 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 Wiki Markup
\[What kinds of actions? Pt. right above refers to policy advice\]
(OCL: others might wish to comment on this.) Threats                                                                            
- Lack of means
Wiki Markup
\[Unclear.  "Means"?  Suggestion:  Lack of funding \-\- and then state what it risks\]
 - Less operational exposure 
Wiki Markup
\[Could do what?\]
 - Lack of volunteers
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)

C.S.3 - Improved consultation among the RALOs and their representatives on the committee \[What committee?  ALAC's Subcommittee on Budget and Finance?\]
C.S.4 - Cost-effective actions
C.S.5 - Experience sharing among RALOs  
C.S.6 - A bottom-up budget structure for At-Large                                                                     

\[Review rewording; by face-to-face meetings, do you mean GAs, ICANN meetings, etc.?\]and legitimacy

Strengths                                                                            
C.S - STRENGTHS                                                                            

C.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
C.S.2 - In-house knowledge of budgetary requirements within At-Large

Wiki Markup
\[Budgeting requirements?\]
Wiki Markup

Weaknesses                                                                   
C.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

C.W.1 - Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
C.W.2 - Communication problems ICANN finance
C.W.3 - No possibility of ROI figure - "investing in At Large is like investing in R&D"
C.W.4 - ICANN currently only source of funds for At Large
C.W.5 - Lack of clear funding schedule/calendar with regards to face to face general assemblies introduces uncertainty
C.W.6 - We need to improve our interaction with the staff during the budget planning process.

C.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                          Opportunities                                                                        
 
C.O.1 - ALAC/At-Large could provide information regarding At-Large budgetary needs in a more timely manner and in the required format

Threats                                                                            
C.T - THREATS                                                                            

C.T.1 - Limiting ALAC's budget could:
    1.  Directly and severely affect outreach capability
    2.  Allow for fewer or no facefor fewer or no face-to-face meetings , thus triggering ALSes to abandon (including but not limited to GAs, ICANN meetings, Summits, RALO meetings, other "inreach" efforts, etc.) 
         a.  Possible consequences could include ALSes' abandoning At-Large and, thus, potentially ending reducing At-Large's usefulness

Wiki Markup