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 to address each of .The Organisational Effectiveness Committee has provided templates that are expected for each individual item, detailing the steps that At-Large will undertake to address each of these issues.
An Issues Team led by At-Large leaders will detail these steps as discussed by their work teams, and will bring these to the Implementation Working Group for comment and finalisationfinalization.
This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.
...
To access the Issue you would like to view, click the Toggle cloak > You will see that a demonstration model Item #1 has been started. But this is only draft and for demonstration purposes only.
Issues #1 - #16:
Edit (above)
Issues #1 - #16:
Please note issues committed to by the ALAC and approved by the Board are highlighted in green.
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies -
...
Issue#1
Toggle Cloak |
---|
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for 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
| ||||||||||
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation | (JC) Baseline standardization of RALO membership criteria and application process (including assessment), subject to the remits of ICANN Bylaws applicable to ALAC. | |||||||||
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | (JC) ALAC, RALO LT, AT-Large Staff | Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | Expected budget implications | Proposed implementation steps: | 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 ARIWG
Issue #3
Lead: Holly Raiche
...
|
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
|
- 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
- (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
- (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
- (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
- (JC) Performance review
8. (NA) A targeted policy development training program to at-large staff goes hand-in hand with at-large community development or capacity building program. Reasoning the peer learning and discussions enhances the learning.
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
- (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first
- (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
- (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large to enable them to be effective points of reference for queries, past positions, webinars etc
- (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring, distilling and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members collected through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
- (JC) Performance review
- 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
...
- (JC) Performance review
...
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 Issue #4 Lead: Maureen Hilyard | Leadership Team (ALT), which is not mandated by ICANN Bylaws, concentrates in the established leadership too many decision-making and other administrative powers which should be spread among the members of the ALAC. | The ALAC Chair will work with members of the ALAC and staff to better communicate the role and activities of the ALT ensuring that it is clear what the ALT does and does not do. |
Prioritization | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group) | ARIWG comments |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
---|---|
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, |
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
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: |
|
Continuous Improvement(s) | This is an ongoing work. With the new organization of ALAC, Policy, O&E and Organizational will work as umbrellas of all other working groups. |
Metrics | WG pages up to date. Annual review by Cross Policy, Organizational and Outreach and Engagement Heads |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
---|
Most of the work was already done in the last year (Mainly in ICANN 60). The remaining process should not take more than 3 months. With the exception of the change of the RoP that should take up to a year. |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5Issue#8 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG
| To the extent allowed by ICANN’s mission and available funding, members of At-Large and the At-Large organizations will continue to, and potentially increase, our involvement 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. |
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) |
---|
(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.
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 (NA) Social media in ICANN basically used to disseminate updates and it is one direction, however, having it as a channel for engagement with followers need a dedicated skilled staff/volunteers, the engagement what attracts the right followers. Again, it is not about the tool, but the type of added value posts that sustain interest in the channel. (MM) In reality, most end-users never get near an ICANN process and when they do, the language is so foreign, they might not come back. Some communications experts who can speak about ICANN issues without getting into ICANN language would be really useful. | |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | SoMeWG Chair John Laprise has been working with the WG and with staff to develop and implement new community strategies including the use of new tools to improve and grow community engagement. SoMeWG has also worked to develop RALO level SoMe teams to use regionally relevant social media platforms and languages to extend community reach and voice. |
---|
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
| 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 |
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. |
(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.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#7Issue#10 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| ||||||
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#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. | ||||
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | We will continue to investigate opportunities to use Social Media and other online tools that prove useful to bring end-users’ voices to ICANN and vice -versa. However, we caution against seeing social media and online tools as a substitute for other means of participation. We are eager to work with ICANN Organization to understand ICANN’s interests in this area, and the tools available to integrate and communicate our work more effectively. | ||||
Prioritization | 3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority) | ARIWG comments |
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#9Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||
---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| 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 | 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
...
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. For example is there any way we can check how often Capacity building webinars are being accessed after their real-time presentation? Also if transcripts or recordings are being accessed by participants who cannot attend the meetings in real-time. Are their current formats relevant to what our target audiences need in order to be informed?
(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.
|
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
|
...
Proposed implementation steps:
...
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |
---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG Issue #11 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 | (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#13 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
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.
At-Large Staff working with relevant departments to develop a single location which will point to travel funding opportunities and documentation of what resources were ultimately distributed, to the extent supported by those ICANN entities providing funding and reports. | |
Prioritization | 2.2.1 (Medium needs; medium risk; #1 priority group) CROP and Non Discretionary funds to leverage on regional event participation |
---|
ARIWG comments | (MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, |
---|
#12,and #15 which are also to do with Outreach, will be required (MH) before we go further with our current O&E and capacity building programmes, have we really assessed the |
(AC) At-Large on the Road approach...
Proposed implementation steps:
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#14Issue#15 Toggle Cloak
Cloak | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
| 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
|
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
|
...