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
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#3 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #3
Lead: Holly Raiche
...
|
...
- 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
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
| |||||||||
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 |
/ 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? | (JC) ICANN Org for HR aspects, ALAC for actual implementation, with supervision also provided under CPWG leadership (or any other WG dealing with ALAC policy) (HM) with supervision provided by the implementation working group of the ALAC |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | |
Expected budget implications | |
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 Lead: Sebastien 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 | 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
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| (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#8 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #8
Lead: John Laprise
...
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5
...
(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
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9 Toggle Cloak
...
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #9
Lead: John Laprise
...
(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
(AC) Also linked to Capacity Building Program as a transversal objective to build O&E, besides disseminating information.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
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
| 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. |
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 |
---|
) | |
ARIWG comments | (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? (AC) Agree with Maureen’s comment on metrics. A detailed rubric should be in place. (AC) What is the objective of the Capacity Building Program? What metrics are we using to ensure this.. therefore this item has to be linked to the Metrics item #16 as well (NA) Coordination with I* organizations and also with ICANN cross community to conduct outreach and engagement activities, to put a clear objectives and a measurable deliverables to be set in advance. (NA) There is also a need to do outreach and engagement within ICANN SOs/ACs, because not all of their members understand At-Large work. (JH) ICANN GSE staff should collaborate with local RALOS and ALSes in the region and apprise them of events with Think Tanks, Univeristies, conferences, private sector programs so that local ALSes can participate and conduct outreach and engagement with these groups. Often we find out abou these events after the fact and they are perfect outreach and engagement opportunities that are lost |
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.
(AC) A trimester newsletter (depending on resources) could be used as an O&E tool, as well as inform 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#11Issue#6 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| 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. |
Sebastien 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 | ( |
---|
Proposed implementation steps:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12 Toggle Cloak
|
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
| ||||||
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 |
---|
(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
advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice (NA) Would be handy to have a one stop shop document as a wiki page that serve as tool to document all the working groups and their members and process used. This page, will be also good for branching out to the working space or the different resources. |
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? |
As mentioned above in the general comments, this should be lead by ALAC, and there is also a carpentry work that must be done by staff. | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | The expected amount of carpentry by staff is very low, just maintain the groups up to date, We should expect less than 10% of one person per month, or 0,1 FTE, if any. |
---|---|
Expected budget implications | So far, this 0,1 FTE, no need for additional software, since it is on the wiki site, |
Proposed implementation steps: |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13 Toggle Cloak
...
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #13
Lead: Glenn McKnight
...
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.
...
(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
...
- 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
(AC) Documentation to distribute must be available in diverse formats for audience. (hard-copy, digital, QR codes, etc.)
...
- Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
- An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG
| It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds. |
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 |
---|
Proposed implementation steps:
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 |
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 ORG (staff) is responsible for managing official global ICANN Social Media handles, accounts, and related management tools. ICANN community is responsible for day to day content curation and sharing at the regional level. | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | |
---|---|
Expected budget implications | |
Proposed implementation steps: | |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | Standard social media engagement engagement metrics with the caveat that social media channels are inherently noisy and derived metrics include significant error. |
How long will it take to implement this plan? | In process |
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
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 |
#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 (AC) Also linked to Capacity Building Program as a transversal objective to build O&E, besides disseminating information. (AC) It seems that ICANN produces Regional Newsletters, in addition to those prepared by Regions. Could this effort be coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts? See - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-newsletter (NA) From following ICANN communication specialists one can notice that they are unfortunately not social media specialists. There is a need to well-designed capacity building program for staff only on social media engagements. (MM) I reiterate my point about the need for communications experts who don't speak ICANNese and who can package the message in a way that the enduser can relate to it. |
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#10 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
|
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| Proposed implementation steps: | Continuous Improvement(s) | Metrics
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|