Page History

Strengths                                                                           
A.S - STRENGTHS                                                                              

A.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring brings talent
A.S.2 - Knowledge of local communities
- Regional involvement and balance:
    1.  At-Large outreach is pillar of ICANN's strategic influence in Internet governance
    2.  Involvement of all five RALOs is an asset
    3.  Knowledge of local communities benefits outreach planning
    4.  Knowledge of local actors (e.g., stakeholders, government leaders,
policy makers, regulators) related to ICANN and Internet ecosystem
    5.  Knowledge of possible outreach efforts
    6.  First- First hand involvement of members in Internet Governance activities governance unrelated to ICANN and domain names
A.S.3 - At Large Outreach is a pillar of ICANN's strategic influence in Internet governance
- At Large Strategy strategy is bottom-up and reflects the consensus of many stakeholders
A.S.4 - Current structure and existing processes are in place to avoid capture and allow scalability 
- Commercial as well as individual interests are not taken into account
- The fact that all of the RALOs are involved is an asset.
- We can bring our differing backgrounds and experiences to bear on the planning process and readily share these electronically
- International reach
- important number of stakeholders
- A core A.S.5 - At-Large, as home of individual Internet users, does not take into account purely commercial or vested individual interests
A.S.6 - Number and diversity of stakeholders are growing
A.S.7 - Level of participation by stakeholders is increasing
A.S.8 - At-Large is core part of the original ICANN vision
- Multi A.S.9 - At-Large's multi-stakeholder, bottom-up system of governance transcending beyond transcends operational domain name issues
A.S.10 - At Large, as ICANN's conscience, brings unique considerations to strategic planning

A.W - WEAKNESSES                                                               

A.W.1 - Specific details of At-Large strategy are not well defined or easily understood
A.W.2 - Translations: 
    1.  Number is limited
    2.  Delays exist
A.W.3 Weaknesses                                                                  
- Lack of clear overall strategy for At Large
- Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
- Lack of roadmap and scenarios for the future of At Large
- At Large is not being used enough as a strategic resource by ICANN
- Public Participation does not appear to be related to At Large, neither by staff, nor by the Board (public participation committee)
- Translation delays
- Lack of clear strategic targets for the whole At-Large community (ALSes, RALOs, and ALAC) - Lack of consultation and coordination between RALOs
- Lack of understanding with the ICANN Strategy team
- Limited number of language translations 

Opportunities                                                                      
A.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                      

A.O.1 - Ability to feed local and global issues in into ICANN strategy
A.O.2 - Very powerful communication channel
A.O.3 - Useful tool for ICANN outreach (when you insert changes, plz make sure it is not duplicate)
- Local ALS can help for local events (liaison with local stakeholders)
(when you insert changes, plz make sure it is not duplicate)
- Developing countries and emerging economies provide lots of prospects 

A.O.4 - Local ALSes can help with local events (i.e., act as liaisons to local stakeholders)
A.O.5 - Developing countries and emerging economies provide many prospects 
A.O.6 - Opportunity exists to create a road-map, based on various scenarios, for At-Large's future
A.O.7 - A better understanding between At-Large and ICANN Strategy team could lead to increased use of At-Large as a strategic resource for ICANN
A.O.8 - Public participation could be strengthened by integrating the Public Participation Committee's strategy with At-Large 's processes, facilitated by Staff
A.O.9 - Consultation and coordination between RALOs should be strengthened

A.T - THREATS                                                                            

A.T.1 Threats                                                                            
- Lack of funding limits outreach
A.T.2 - Lack of volunteers reduces time spent on strategic issues
A.T.3 - Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
A.T.4 - Loss of ICANN credibility if At-Large does not grow
A.T.5 - If bottom-up process is broken or At-Large strategy is not considered:
         1. Loss of local support if At Large fails to be fully utilised by ICANN to extend local influence and collect local input (2-way process)
- The culture of stakeholder preference within ICANN

         2. Loss of stakeholder input
A.T.6 - ICANN's control by Government government-led agencies
- Another A.T.7 - Competition from another agency similar to ICANN
A.T.8 - International pressure limits ICANN's revenue

Strengths                                                                          
B.S - STRENGTHS                                                                          

B.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
- Local B.S.2 - Local organizational knowledge brings unbiased view of operations thus possibly lowering costs or alerting ICANN to another angle
- Processes in place for bringing a wide range of ideas and decisions up from the grass roots
- ALS knowledge of local synergies
- The fact that all of the RALOs are involved is an asset.  
- We can bring our differing : 
    1. Lower costs of implementation 
    2. Local political insight
B.S.3 - Local community input: 
    1. Grassroots input 
    2. RALO involvement is an asset   
B.S.4 - On-the-ground, workable and well-defined actions 
B.S.5 - At-Large uses electronic tools to bring its members' different backgrounds and experiences to bear on the planning process and readily share these electronically.
- On the ground workable and well defined actions 

B.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

B.W.1 - At-Large reacts slowly
B.W.2 - At-Large maturity Weaknesses                                                                   
- Slow reaction from At Large
- At Large Maturity still not completely achieved
- Public Participation does not appear to be related to At Large, neither by staff, nor by the Board (public participation committee)
- At Large comments appear not to be taken seriously enough by the ICANN Board & Staff, although they are the result of consensus based processes
- Translation delays
- Actions proposed by At-Large are not considered by ICANN
B.W.3 - Translations: 
    1.  Number is limited
    2.  Delays exist

B.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                      

B.O.1 - Strengthen maturity of At-Large by improving processes
B.O.2 - Use At- Opportunities                                                                      
- Strengthen Maturity of At Large through establishment of improved processes
- Use At Large as a powerful communication channel
- Local ALS can help for local events (logistics with local stakeholders)
- "At Large is ICANN's conscience"
- Operating plan is requisite tool for well prepared budget
- Ability to convey ICANN message locally Threats                                                                            
- Lack of means translates to less membership volunteers, leading to less operational exposure and utility
- Less operational exposure leads to At Large being less useful
- Scope of action is reduced with a lack of volunteers
- If At Large output is felt as being disreguarded by ICANN in general (Board, Finance, Staff, etc.), volunteers will lose interest and output will fall
- Top Down culture in parts of ICANN is a serious threat. Those endulging in Top Down have completely misunderstood the direction that the organisation is taking
- The culture of stakeholder preference within ICANN B.O.3 - At-Large operating plan could be a useful step in preparing an accurate budget
B.O.4 - At-Large's abilities and reach could be used to convey ICANN's message locally
B.O.5 - At-Large could incorporate public participation into ICANN's operational planning
B.O.6 - At-Large comments, as result of consensus-based process, should be considered by ICANN Board and staff 
B.O.7 - Plans (such as a Second At-Large Summit or RALO GAs) proposed by At-Large should be considered by ICANN

B.T - THREATS                                                                            

B.T.1 - Lack of resources (including operational funding, staff headcount, translation services, Web services, conference-call services, other daily logistical needs, etc.) 
B.T.2 - Less operational effectiveness and visibility leading to a lack of volunteer interest
B.T.3 - Lack of volunteers would limit operational planning and capabilities

Strengths                                                                            
C.S - STRENGTHS                                                                            

C.S.1 - Membership diversity can bring talent
C.S.2 - In-house knowledge of budgetary requirements within at At-Large
C.S.3 - Improved consultation among the RALOs and their representatives on the committee
ALAC
C.S.4 - Cost-effective actions
C.S.5 - Experience sharing among RALOs                                                                        RALOs  
C.S.6 - A bottom-up budget structure for At-Large                                                                     

C.W - WEAKNESSES                                                                   

C.W.1 Weaknesses                                                                   
- Lack of established feedback loop from ICANN
C.W.2 - Communication problems ICANN finance
C.W.3 - No possibility of ROI figure - "investing in At Large is like investing in R&D"
C.W.4 - ICANN currently only source of funds for At Large
C.W.5 - Lack of clear funding schedule/calendar with regards to face to face general assemblies introduces uncertainty
C.W.6 - We need to improve our interaction with the staff during the budget planning process.
- Gab between At-Large and the ICANN staff

Opportunities                                                                       
- Bottom-up budget structure for At Large
- Allocate part of the overall ICANN outreach and marketing budget to local outreach collaborating with RALO/ALSes
- Agree with ICANN finance on a calendar of recurring significant ICANN investment in At Large, like a company invests in Research & Development.
- Agree with ICANN finance on a calendar of recurring significant ICANN investment in At Large, like a company invests in Marketing and advertising for its products.
- Agree with ICANN finance on ROI metrics, whether they are quantifiable or only qualitative. Discuss with ICANN finance and Board what they wish to obtain from At Large.
- We should be supplying information on our needs in a C.O - OPPORTUNITIES                                                                         
 
C.O.1 - ALAC/At-Large could provide information regarding At-Large budgetary needs in a more timely manner and in the required format

C. Threats                                                                            
- Individuals (Staff/Board/other constituencies) in ICANN structure not believing in At Large
- Shrinking Budget allows for no outreach
- Shrinking Budget allows for no face to face meetings, thus triggering ALS abandon leading to end of At Large utility
- RALOs looking for outside (non-ICANN) sources of funding - is this acceptable to ICANN? T - THREATS                                                                            

C.T.1 - Limiting ALAC's budget could:
    1.  Directly and severely affect outreach capability
    2.  Allow for fewer or no face-to-face meetings (including but not limited to GAs, ICANN meetings, Summits, RALO meetings, other "inreach" efforts, etc.) 
         a.  Possible consequences could include ALSes' abandoning At-Large, reducing At-Large's usefulness and legitimacy