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.
...
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 |
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG Issue #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 | 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 |
Issue #1 Lead: Jonathan Zuck | Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear. |
Prioritization | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority) |
ARIWG comments | |
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 | (MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups. |
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: |
| Continuous Improvement(s) | Metrics | How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
...
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
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#2 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
|
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
| ||||||||
Cloak | ||||||||
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG Issue #5 Lead: Tijani Ben Jemaa | Uneven contribution of At-Large to a coordinated ICANN strategy for ‘Outreach and Engagement’. Missed opportunities for coordination with other constituencies and ICANN staff. | |||||||
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | 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 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. | |||||||
Prioritization | 2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 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? | ICANN Community, ICANN IT staff, ICANN At Large Staff |
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#6Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the 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 | How long will it take to implement this plan? |
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 Issue #7 Lead: Javier Rua-Jovet | 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 | (MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice
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#8Issue#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 Lead: John Laprise | 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) | ARIWG comments |
#1 priority) |
ARIWG |
---|
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9 Toggle Cloak
| (MH) This task is related to Activity Item #8 |
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#13 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| 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 | 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#11 Toggle Cloak
| |||||||||
Cloak | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG Issue #11 Lead: Olivier Crepin Leblond | 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 | (MH) ATLASIII, ICANN66 Montreal, Canada in November 2019 will be dependent on the outcomes of this implementation plan. The Metrics Issue #16 also relates to this task.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? |
---|
Proposed implementation steps:
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 Issue #12 Lead: Cheryl Langdon Orr | ALAC input to a coordinated ICANN Outreach sub-optimal. |
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | 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. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
ARIWG comments | (MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #13,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 | 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: |
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#13Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
(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 | 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#14 Toggle Cloak
|
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 | |
Cloak | |
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG Issue #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) |
Issue #15 Lead: Maureen Hilyard | Need to reinforce impact of outreach and engagement activities. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | 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. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
ARIWG comments | (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#15 Toggle 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
|
Issue #15
Lead: Maureen Hilyard
...
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.
...
(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
...
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? |
---|