AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Introduction to this workspace:
Welcome to the At-Large Review Implementation Prioritisation Prioritization and Dependencies Workspace. The Board approved sixteen proposals suggested by the ALAC to resolve as a result
During the process of the At-Large Review.
The Organisational Effectiveness Committee has provided templates that are expected for each individual item, detailing the steps that At-Large will undertake to address each of these issues.
, the ALAC committed to eight review implementation activities (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 16) which the Board agreed to in their Resolution dated 23 June 2018.
There were an additional five issues (5, 6,, 8, 10, 11) raised in the At-Large Review which the ALAC considers important but are continuously being addressed as part of At-Large's ongoing activities.
Three issues (12, 14 and 15) will be focused upon as applicable but there is no immediate ongoing activity.
The Organizational Effectiveness Committee has provided templates that are expected for each individual item, detailing the steps that At-Large will undertake to address each of these issues.
An Issues Team led by At-Large leaders will detail these steps as discussed by their work teams, and will bring these to the Implementation Working Group for comment and finalizationAn Issues Team led by At-Large leaders will detail these steps as discussed by their work teams, and will bring these to the Implementation Working Group for comment and finalisation.
This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.
...
Key related workspace: ARIWG Plan Development
Issues #1 - #16:
To access the Issue you would like to view, click Edit (above)
Issues #1 - #16:
Please note issues committed to by the ALAC and approved by the Board are highlighted in green.
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#1
Toggle Cloak |
---|
Cloak | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for demonstration purposes and discussion within by the AIRWG ARIWG
| |||||||
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | Already underway, continuous improvement to continue / HU; EE | ||||||
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation | None noted as at end Sept 2018 | ||||||
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | ICANN Staff in conjunction with ALAC/At-Large Leadership |
(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 lead | Already 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 implications | Nothing additional beyond already allocated resources to At-Large. |
Proposed implementation steps: |
|
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
...
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
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak
Cloak |
---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG |
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
...
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.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only for demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG | |
Issue #7 | 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 | Prioritization | ARIWG comments |
Issue #2 | At-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 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 |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (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. (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
b. Remove elements that cause "friction" in participation
c. Revitalize the At-Large 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: |
( |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
...