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 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 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 finalisationfinalization.
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.
Issues #1 - #16:
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 ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
...
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
...
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2toggle-
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
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 | How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
...
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..
...
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 ARIWG
...
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
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG | |
Issue #6 | Election processes are excessively complex and have been open to allegations of unfairness. |
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | At-Large will continue to evolve its processes through its bottom-up, consensus based, community deliberations and update as and when needed. |
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 |
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: | (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. |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | (HM)The changes made to improve the barriers to individual participation (HM)RALOs contributions to the statements and opinions posted by the ALAC |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|
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
| |
Cloak | |
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG | |
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 |
#3 Lead: Holly Raiche | Staff resources are disproportionately concentrated on administrative support. Staff should have greater capacity to support preparation of policy advice. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board |
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8 Toggle Cloak
| 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#9 Toggle Cloak
|
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
| ||||||||
Cloak | ||||||||
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG | ||||||||
Issue #9 | Need for increased At-Large Community awareness and staff training regarding the use of social media. | |||||||
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | The ALAC will request additional staff skill development in the area of social media, and to work cooperatively with ICANN Communications social media specialists. | |||||||
Prioritization | 2.2.2 (Medium needs; medium risk; #2 priority group) |
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#10 Toggle Cloak
|
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 | |
Cloak | |
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG | |
Issue #10 | 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 Technology Taskforce regularly reviews various communications tools with the aim of improving At-Large participation. The At-Large Community is very diverse and the selection of any new tools must accommodate this diversity. We will also need to continue to investigate how we can overcome the lack of affordable communications for many of our participants and future participants. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) | 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, or that are dependent |
Proposed implementation steps:
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 | |
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) | 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: |
on implementation of this recommendation |
(AC) Documentation to distribute must be available in diverse formats for audience. (hard-copy, digital, QR codes, etc.) |
---|---|
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | Joint implementation - At-Large O&E S/C needs support from GSE especially when it comes to Community Outreach |
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#12Issue#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#13Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| |
Cloak | |
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG | |
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) |
#15 Lead: Maureen Hilyard | Need to reinforce impact of outreach and engagement activities. |
---|---|
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.
- 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
| 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#15 Toggle Cloak
...
|
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
|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
...
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 ARIWG | |
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 | 1:1:2 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 2nd priority group) |
ARIWG comments | Metrics will be developed for each activity in which At-Large participants are involved in order to measure the effectiveness of our processes as well as the actual involvement of active participants who assist the ALAC to carry out its work within ICANN. Such evidence will not only provide transparency and accountability of the contribution made by At-Large with regards to their meaningful contribution in support of the policy development work carried out by ICANN's supporting organisations, but also of the degree of effort and engagement of the many volunteers whose meaningful contribution to the work of At-Large adds value to the development of policy that is an essential part of the the work of ICANN. Metrics could also legitimate requests made by At-Large for increased funding support for regional activities where there is still a need for further outreach to educate those in underserved sub-regions about ICANN. One specific goal for the metrics team during 2018-2019, will be the identification of 60 participants who demonstrate meaningful participation and engagement in both ICANN and their regions, to attend the ATLASIII in Montreal in November 2019 | 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 will requested to develop 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 | Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | Expected budget implications | Proposed implementation steps: | 1
. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide appropriate metrics that will |
assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal 3. Each of the three streams of At-Large activity (Organisational, Policy and O&E) will establish a goal with measurable objectives which can evaluated at the end of the year to assess achievement of the work stream objectives during the year. | |
Continuous Improvement(s) | (JC) Review of solution post implementation to establish the effectiveness and fairness in achievement of the objective |
---|
, as well as |
majority support of the At-Large community for the same. (MH) some metrics which have been suggested but still yet to be discussed
(JC) I would suggest bulleted items under point 3 be identified performance metrics while we consider that methodology or combination of performance metrics should be used for assessment. Some At-Large folks are not in the position to meet all metrics so a fair methodology is needed for scoring. (MM) I don't know about "evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved recommendations.. I would rather say evidence of explanation of such recommendations. | |
Metrics |
|
---|
2. Each task that the At-Large community is involved in will require metrics in order to assess the achievement of key milestones as well as of the level of achievement of the entire activity
3. In order to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019, performance metrics will be used to assess each individual:
- recorded attendance of regional as well as general At-Large meetings and involvements,
- evidence of active participation in and meaningful contribution to these meetings
- evidence of active participation and meaningful contribution to policy or other statements that At-Large is requested to participate in
- evidence of active engagement in the distribution of information about ICANN and its activities at local. national or regional level
- evidence of mentorship support given to colleagues, or the development of resources, to build further knowledge and understanding of the work of ICANN within the regions
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|