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 undertake 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 discussion 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
...
|
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
|
...
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
...
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 |
- Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
- Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
- Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #4
Lead: Maureen Hilyard
...
Final Proposal as approved by the Board
...
This leadership model has been developed by the incoming Chair to offer a visual representation of the new At-Large Leadership Team (ALT), as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. The ALT now includes Regional Leaders, to encourage more interaction between the ALAC and the leaders of our regional member organisations. The objective is also to ensure that decisions and other important messages from the ICANN Board (through our At-Large Board representative) and from other constituencies of ICANN (through the ALAC Liaisons) are relayed more directly to Regional Leaders and will more easily filter to the At-Large Community through RALO meetings and outreach and engagement opportunities.
...
|
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
|
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. 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 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 involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place
...
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 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
| ||
Cloak | ||
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG Issue #6 Lead: Sebastian Bachollet | 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 |
Continue to look for opportunities to utilize and develop the skills of At-Large |
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.
(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #12, #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
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6 Toggle Cloak
| Metrics | How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7 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
|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #7
Lead: Javier Rua-Jovet
...
(MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice
...
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 ARIWG Issue #8 Lead: John Laprise 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
| 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 | (MH) This item highlights how we can use social media to enhance the work that is being done in O&E, so that some collaboration with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate Also to the communication channels item #10, looking at effective ways to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as 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 | 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#9 Toggle Cloak
| ||||||
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 | (MH) This task is related to Activity Item #8 about using social media to assist At-Large with its outreach attempts to attract more participants into our policy development areas and how we can do this more effectively
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
---|---|
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation |
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #10
Lead: Dev Anand Teelucksingh
...
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.
...
|
(MH) This item also highlights how we can use what communication channels are available to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community.
Some collaboration with the social media items (#8 & #9) but also with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate, to enhance the work that is being done in O&E
As well as some metrics to assess the effectiveness of any communication channels that we implement.
(Satish) Some RALOs bring out their periodic newsletters, which are useful in providing information (including policy updates and progress of initiatives) to their community. I'd like to suggest an At-Large-wide newsletter that can periodically update the At-Large community as a whole, besides also informing other AC/SOs on the activities of ALAC.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5 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 #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: | Continuous Improvement(s) | Metrics |
Issue #11#5 Lead: Olivier Crepin LeblondTijani 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 staffWhile 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. | 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. | ||||||||
Prioritization | 2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group | Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) | |||||||
ARIWG comments | (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. | 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#12 Toggle Cloak
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13Issue#6 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| ||||||
Prioritization | 2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group) |
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 | (NA) Although At-Large LT election process have evolved and enhanced, but there is still need to move beyond the pre-arranged nomination process of the same leadership team changing roles, because it hinders the introduction of new emerging leaders to come forwards under the perception that everything is set in advance. (NA) A limit on the number of continuous rounds leaders can hold role in the LT. Then call for a certain number of years gap before returning to a new or same role. This will give a chance for new leaders to emerge. (MM) We need to control the revolving door perception while attempting to keep experienced members on board. It is a careful balancing act. Term limits can help. Perhaps some advisor positions or emeritus like they have in universities |
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
|
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 comments |
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) |
- Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
- An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
Expected budget implications | |
---|---|
Proposed implementation steps: |
|
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
---|---|
Metrics | |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
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
| 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 | 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#15 Toggle Cloak
| |||||
Cloak | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG 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 |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
---|---|
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation |
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 Lead: Maureen Hilyard | 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 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 | Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | Expected budget implications | Proposed implementation steps: |
evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved |
recommendations.. I would rather say evidence of explanation of such recommendations. | |
Metrics |
|
---|
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|