AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
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.
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 finalisation.
, 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 finalization.
This task is This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.
...
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.
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
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak
...
|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by 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#2
Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG ARIWG
| 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. | ||||
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) | ARIWG comments | 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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
...
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 as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. 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 Wiki and 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..
|
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 |
...
Any changes to personnel involvem are 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 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 discussion by 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 discussion by 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 | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group) | ARIWG comments |
Issue #13 Lead: Glenn McKnight | Need more systematic RALO participation in regional events |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | At-Large Staff working with relevant departments to develop a single location which will point to travel funding opportunities and documentation of what resources were ultimately distributed, to the extent supported by those ICANN entities providing funding and reports. |
Prioritization | 2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group) CROP and Non Discretionary funds to leverage on regional event participation |
ARIWG comments | (MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,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? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well (NA) Per my point for issue #12, the more ALSes are engaged in the outreach activities on the local level the more closer At-large gets to its objectives. (NA) The format and the agenda items of RALOs monthly meeting has to tailored to discuss with the ALSes attendees the latest issues and what they have to say about it and put minimal time to convey important updates that is relevant to them. |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
---|---|
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent |
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8 Toggle Cloak
| ||||||||||
Cloak | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the AIRWG | ||||||||||
Issue #8 | 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. | |||||||||
Prioritization | 3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority) | ARIWG comments | 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#9Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG ARIWG
| |
Prioritization | 2.2.2 (Medium needs; medium risk; #2 priority group) | ARIWG comments |
#14 Lead: Alan Greenberg | Need for an innovative approach to funding a revitalized At-Large. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board |
It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds. | |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
---|---|
ARIWG comments | (NA) Study and evaluate at-large earlier budgets to analyze how to conduct the same activities more efficiently with less cost. |
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#10Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG ARIWG
| 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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG | |
Issue #11 | While broadly popular, Global ATLAS meetings every 5 years have been difficult to organize and short on effective results. More frequent regional meetings would be more effective in encouraging both policy input and outreach while familiarizing more of At Large with workings of ICANN. |
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | The ALAC will proceed with its plans as approved by the Board, pending appropriate funding. As with all At-Large activities, there will be an increased focus on tracking and metrics. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #13 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? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well (MH - in bylaws: The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users. (NA) with reference to “When opportunities have arisen where funds are available to bring a targeted group to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.” was there a measurement of the success rates of these program? How many of those benefited from these programs continued to be engaged in ICANN SO/ACs? (NA) A rubric is needed to make sure those invited would be worth the investment. (JH) More collaboration with Local GSE who attend many events and could provide ALSes with additional opportunities to outreach and engage at a local level with minimal travel needed. |
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: |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
|
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
|
...
As noted in Issue 5, the ALAC supports such external activity to the extent that funding is available and it coincides with ICANN’s mission. Increases in such funding would be appreciated, but in light of the FY19 draft budget, we are now in a mode of trying to minimize impact of the proposed cuts to such activities.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
...
At-Large Staff working with relevant departments to develop a single location which will point to travel funding opportunities and documentation of what resources were ultimately distributed, to the extent supported by those ICANN entities providing funding and reports.
...
- The priorities of the CROP funding initiative has direct impact on the number and types of events we are underwritten to participate. Need assurances on the quantity of sponsored trips to properly plan the year events
- Approval of RALO strategic plans and the subsequent waiting period for staff approval directly impacts some trips that could occur shortly after approval
- Clear and open communication on the GSE activities so that RALO's can participate
...
- Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
- An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG | |
Issue #14 | Need for an innovative approach to funding a revitalized At-Large. |
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
---|---|
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation |
of this recommendation | The Technology Task Force would be helpful in developing appropriate tools to record assessments of different activities based on the type of metrics being collected for some measurement purpose. The Stakeholder Analysis Tool will be able to make use of any regional or country based metrics we develop first through At-Large and then further throughout ICANN (JC) Selection of methodology for scoring identified performance metrics. |
---|---|
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) |
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
...
As noted previously, subject to available funding, we do look for opportunities to explain At-Large and attract new participants at non-ICANN events. When opportunities have arisen where funds are available to bring a targeted group to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16 Toggle Cloak
| ||||||||||
Cloak | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG | ||||||||||
Issue #16 | Absence of consistent performance metrics. | |||||||||
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | The ALAC has had a Metrics WG and an ALS Review Taskforce, both of which largely went into stasis during the IANA Transition and Accountability efforts. It is proposed to revive this activity as part of the At-Large Review Implementation. The ALAC notes that regional differences make it more difficult to have uniformity over participation metrics, but agrees that is an important target. The ALAC notes that collecting such statistics is a staff-intensive operation. | |||||||||
Prioritization | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group) | ARIWG comments | 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