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 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

Issue #1 Lead: Jonathan Zuck	Quality vs Quantity of ALAC Advice
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our “Policy Advice” pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear.
Prioritization	1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority)
ARIWG comments	(MH) This activity could relate to Activity Item #7 with regards to working groups. (AC) re 4. c. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn to make make recommendations to the community on prioritization (NOT SURE I Understand the idea) Thanks for the question Alfredo! What I'm proposing is that instead of every call for public comment simply announced to the community by staff, prompting individuals to take up things of personal interest, we bring each public comment before the CPWG and discuss it's relevance to end users and, only if deemed relevant to our particular perspective, do we make a call for drafters. Make sense? (AC) Agree.
Status of improvement effort / staff lead	Already underway, continuous improvement to continue / HU; EE
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?	ICANN Staff in conjunction with ALAC/At-Large Leadership
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)	Staff up to 0.2 FTEs in Dec 2018 through to Dec 2019
Expected budget implications	Nothing additional beyond already allocated resources to At-Large.
Proposed implementation steps:	Nov 2018 convene analysis and review of issue and status of improvements to date micro-team with staff allocated, penholders for this issue <insert link to wiki page> and ARIWG member volunteers as desired. Identify the specifics of processes and practices used to date. Identification of opportunities for process improvement or modification Development of proposal for reenvisioning any processes and practices to be discussed by ALAC / At-Large and those utilising ALAC advice. Documentation process renewal proposal as agreed and prioritised developed into a project plan. Noting which milestones are intended to be reached by Dec 2019, and what is to be undertaken under review and continuous improvement planning. (HM) logging why we decide to comment or not comment on a certain topic and its relevance to end users (NA for Nadira) suggesting 6. Staff to provide a summary documenting all contributors (at-large individuals and/or ALAC members), once the comment period of certain policy is closed. (reasoning, it might work as incentives for individuals)
Continuous Improvement(s)	Continue and expand the development of webinars to educate the at-large community on the policy considerations of the ICANN community Draw a bright line distinction between individual and at-large policy advice Ensure that at-large representatives to WGs and PDPs are aware of and clear on those distinctions when speaking for the at-large Reimagine the process of advice prioritization by *Focusing on the perspective* of the typical end user (as defined by activities not specific groups of end users) Being disciplined NOT to develop advice when there is no unique "end user" perspective to bring to the discussion (like an amicus brief) Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn make recommendations to the community on prioritization Seek feedback from regional leaders on prioritization advice Reimagine the process of advice/policy development by Using the CWPG to formulate an initial perspective on a particular ICANN policy area Use the regional leaders to socialize and receive feedback on that perspective only THEN identify a pen holder to draft advice from THAT perspective finally, submit that draft for open comment by the at-large community Reimagine the participation of non-English speakers in at-large policy/advice development by Continue to develop "issue briefs" in multiple languages to assist in education of non-English speakers Employ simultaneous translation on CPWG calls Continue and expand staff use as proofreaders for non-English fluent drafters before drafts are made public Employee translators for drafts drafted in a language other than English**
Metrics	Number of advice drafts that result from this process (as opposed to the current process of random volunteers) Number of attempts to get feedback of the larger community Quantity of respondents to attempts to seek feedback Number of at-large community participants in policy/advice development Number of non-fluent English speakers engaged in policy/advice development
How long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2
Toggle Cloak

(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box.

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered.

1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications?

2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not?

3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done?

4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #2

At-Large has struggled to reflect/process end-user opinion; barriers to individual participation; perception of unchanging leadership group.(JC: is this the correct issue statement? Thank you Justine.. yes this has now been inserted correctly)

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

Prioritization

3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)

ARIWG comments

(MH) Do we need to review our application forms for ALSes and Individual members to ensure that we have active participants in our At-Large activities? Otherwise we are planning to put an inordinate amount of work in to reach whom we assume are potential participants who aren't actually there. In APRALO we have 20 names of which only about 3 or 4 are active. I never see others at our meetings etc, so why do they join? are they participating in ICANN Learn?

(JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered. 1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications? 2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not? 3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done? 4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities.

(JH) We also need to clearly indicate that in an ALS we can have many active people from one ALS. Previously there was hesitancy to give out confluence accounts to more than the main and alternate rep.

(NA for Nadira) I could see two fold of the “Outreach an Engagement”, Outreach is one and Engagement is two. Handling the Outreach, RALOs with its community of active ALSes to take part of the outreach within their ALSes members and to their wider community.

(NA) Awareness programs of at-large and ALAC work comes before any community members to start in policy engagements.

(NA) Create a system of shadow mentor to those who wanted to get directly into policy work.

Status of improvement effort / staff lead

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

(MM for M. Moll) I agree with Nadira. Outreach and engagement are very different things. And I would also say that sometimes it takes a long time till outreach becomes engagement when speaking of individuals. People go through different life stages and it is only at some points that people can actually fit something like engagement in ICANN into their lives. So, being too restrictive on criteria could actually cut out some potential contributors. (Satish) Here are a few comments to start off discussions (moved here from the original location): a. Take proactive measures to facilitate and encourage participation from ALSes as well as individual members Evolve a system to better integrate/engage the four categories of people who are currently part of community mailing lists: (a) ALS leaders; (b) ALS Members; (c) Individual members; and (d) Observers. We may be able to provide different services customized for each of these categories. For instance, ALS Leaders may be active during participation, but get disconnected after they move out of their positions, and we may want their continued participation. Similarly, observers may need help to promote them to individual members. Remove deadwood from RALO mailing lists through an appropriate process such as an explicit "opt-in". Similarly, dormant ALSes can be decertified after a due process. Use social media tools creatively to engage members Provide capacity-building measures during ATLAS/GAs, and also by co-ordinating with national/regional Schools of Internet Governance (SIGs) b. Remove elements that cause "friction" in participation Overcoming language barriers that may cause gaps in understanding Providing editorial services for potential pen-holders Ensuring that seemingly-formidable barriers such as time-zone for calls are softened by practices such as call rotation c. Revitalize the At-Large Community Volunteer fatigue could be a factor that limits participation. Consider ways to overcome inertia, fatigue and indifference, perhaps by rallying the community around a common issue Project the renewed vision of "At-Large 2.0" that would help to mobilize and revitalize the community
Status of improvement effort / staff lead
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:	(JC) I sort of alluded to proposed steps in ARIWG comments box. (JC) I think there are several aspects to be considered. 1/ Membership application – we need to do better in asking why orgs and people join a RALO – would this then become a criteria in assessing applications? 2/ Identification of experts and willing & able contributors from within ALSes and individual membership – has the adopted method(s) been successful in each RALOs, why? why not? 3/ Establish clear, member-friendly mechanisms for continued engagement, mechanisms which everybody knows apply – who does what with whom? how is it done? 4/ Then, yes to looking for effective methodologies to coach and onboard new policy volunteers and leaders. All with the understanding that everybody has limited time and energy to devote to At-Large activities. MH: Collect data on end users. CLO: Peer-to-peer support / mentorship activity. AG: post link from prior report highlighting prior focus on these steps.
Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics	(HM)The changes made to improve the barriers to individual participation (HM)RALOs contributions to the statements and opinions posted by the ALAC
How long will it take to implement this plan?

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

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
(JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
(JC) Consider

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

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
(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.

9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure.

10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members

Staff resources are disproportionately concentrated on administrative support. Staff should have greater capacity to support preparation of policy advice.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	Continue to look for opportunities to utilize and develop the skills of At-Large support staff while ensuring that the positions taken by At-Large represent solely those of users. Ensure that the volunteer community has sufficient support services so as to best utilize their volunteer time. This may require a shift or development of skills among At-Large Staff as well as additional staff.
Prioritization	3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments	Status of improvement effort / staff lead	Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?	(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:	(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 (HM) have one of the staff dedicated to policy issues	Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics	(JC) Performance review
How long will it take to implement this plan?

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. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position.

(NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf

(NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.

...

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. 9. (NA) Review the job description of at-large staff to develop separate positions /roles with clear organizational structure. 10.(HM) The staff is to research the topic at hand and propose relevant material to the participants/members 11. (JH) Staff should take notes and summarize the discussion connected with each agenda item in a meeting
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?	(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:	(HM) ALAC internal review about the role of the staff in policy making in the past (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first (HM) Consider having one of the staff dedicated to policy issues (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 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 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 HR/HU: Suggests request of 1 FTE to focus on ALS/Individuals and engagement.
Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics	(JC) Performance review
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

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.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	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	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. This issue also relates to Issue #2 which also included a comment regarding a perception of unchanging leadership which seems a little out of context in its current position. (NA) Fitting ALT into the following At-Large structure, as it is still not the case per the document below https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/alses-beginners-guide-02jun14-en.pdf (NA) Re-considering the ALT leadership team to be different than the ALAC members. Reasoning: to bring more leaders into ALT, ALAC, At-Large, RALO structure and reduce the work load and volunteer burnout of the current ALAC members.
Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation	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.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?	ICANN Staff in conjunction with the ALAC/At-Large Leadership
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications
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.. (HM)8. ALT is to start making delegations to ALAC members
Continuous Improvement(s)	Staff will update the wiki spaces related to this task regularly as any changes are made to the ALAC and to other personnel and working groups or other activities related to the charts and other information
Metrics	Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place
How long will it take to implement this plan?	Implementation will take place immediately after the Barcelona meeting. Once loaded onto the website, it will be updated as required. Ongoing

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.
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 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.
Status of

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..

(HM)8. ALT is to start making delegations to ALAC members

...

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

...

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #5

Lead: Tijani Ben Jemaa

...

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.

...

(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.

...

Additional travel support over what is currently available
More promotionnal material of better quality

...

Proposed implementation steps:

...

Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions)
Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year
Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups

...

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6

Toggle Cloak

Status of

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	(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.

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	Additional travel support over what is currently available More promotional material of better quality
Proposed implementation steps:
Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics	Number of attendees of each capacity building webinar (live and recorded versions) Number of I* events attended by At-Large leaders and members per year Number of joint outreach activities held with other ICANN stakeholder groups
How long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7Issue#6

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue

Lead:

Javier Rua-JovetExcessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction.

Sebastien Bachollet

Election processes are excessively complex and have been open to allegations of unfairness.

Final Proposal as approved by the Board

The ALAC has begun to review our WGs, ensuring that the ones we have are active and relevant. We have also started the process to revamp our WG web and Wiki presence to ensure that all WGs are properly represented and documented. Groups no longer active will be segregated, but still documented for historical purposes

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

Prioritization1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority groupStatus of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendationWho will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

)
ARIWG comments	(

MH) Collaboration 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.

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

Issue

Lead:

John LapriseSocial 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

Javier Rua-Jovet

Excessive amounts of At-Large Community time spent on process and procedure at expense of ALAC’s mandated responsibilities to produce policy advice and coordinate outreach and engagement activities. Too many internal working groups are a distraction.

Final Proposal as approved by the Board

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.

The ALAC has begun to review our WGs, ensuring that the ones we have are active and relevant. We have also started the process to revamp our WG web and Wiki presence to ensure that all WGs are properly represented and documented. Groups no longer active will be segregated, but still documented for historical purposes
Prioritization	1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group

Prioritization3.3.2. (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

Collaboration 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

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

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.

Status of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, 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)MetricsHow 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 (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.
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

That the ALAC has developed goals and objectives for 2019 That there is a staff member designated to regularly update Working group wikis and the Working Group Website page That the CPWG wiki page regularly updates issues discussed and progress statements
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:	Clarify ALAC focus areas and objectives for 2019 Establish or re-establish working groups that will deal with specific time-framed issues as required (under the management of key stream leaders of Organisation, Policy and O&E streams. Ensure that staff establish appropriate and updated wiki pages to record WG objectives as well as details or meetings and outcomes of each WG meeting Ensure that staff record the Working Groups that are currently active on the At-Large website with links to each WG wiki page Establish a wiki page for the Consolidated Policy Group, to record topics covered at each meeting and a progress statement on each (including the EPDP WG) Establish a wiki page for the O&E WG and the outcomes of their monthly meetings (including ATLASIII WGs) Establish a wiki page for the Organisational WGs, and any relevant updates (including ARIWG). An annual review of the groups and participants should be taken. A half session at the AGM should be dedicated to evaluate the current groups, and its participants. Also, 30 days prior to this date an email should be sent to all At-Large to join this working groups. At this time any “no longer needed” group should be stopped, and just kept the records. Change the RoP 14.3.2 to include clear rules of termination of the working groups A person from staff should be clearly indicated as the one in charge to maintain the groups up to date in the wiki site
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#10Issue#8

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue

#10

Lead:

Dev Anand Teelucksingh

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

There are a multitude of communications channels used by At Large. This has led to fractured and undocumented communications

.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board

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

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

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

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,

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.

(NA) At-Large various communications tools are evolving and improving, but it is not about the different tools as much as how to activate a bottom-up community driven updates. Giving the voice of the at-large community and interacting with them that what makes the platforms/tool a success.

Status of improvement effort / staff lead

Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation

Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?

Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)

Expected budget implications

Proposed implementation steps:

Continuous Improvement(s)

Metrics

How long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11

Toggle Cloak

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

Continuous Improvement(

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 (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(

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.

(NA) For the approved Global ATLAS, make sure to have a tangible measurable objectives, that help recruit well engaged community members to potential newcomers who have the time to volunteer to at-large policy work. To provide justifications to ATLAS meetings, is to have those attended the meeting did actually engaged. Adding to avoid having ATLAS to be a replica of a talk show conference.

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:

s)
Metrics
How long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12Issue#10

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue

#12

#10

Lead:

Cheryl Langdon Orr

Dev Anand Teelucksingh

There are a multitude of communications channels used by At Large. This has led to fractured and undocumented communications

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.

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. Additionally language issues on email and other communication tools hamper clear communications.

Prioritization

Prioritization3.

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

(AC) At-Large on the Road approach...

(NA) Rethinking of the outreach programs and in how to conduct them in order to increase its effectiveness.

(NA) Trying different approach to reduce the cost and at the same time engage at-large community members. Preparing a toolkit to ALSes in how to conduct an outreach and readymade templates. Allocate travel support to outstanding members of the ALSes to conduct the outreach regional or national events activities on behalf of the ALAC/RALOs LT, such approach will be a bottom-up and produce more engagements.

Status of improvement effort / staff leadActivities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendationWho 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)MetricsHow long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13

Toggle Cloak

) 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. (JH) Also more collaboration with ICANN IT staff will help ease some of ther frustration with technology and its failures. 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. (NA) At-Large various communications tools are evolving and improving, but it is not about the different tools as much as how to activate a bottom-up community driven updates. Giving the voice of the at-large community and interacting with them that what makes the platforms/tool a success. (JH) We also need more ability to provide feedback to ICANN IT on the tools that are currently used.
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#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. (NA) For the approved Global ATLAS, make sure to have a tangible measurable objectives, that help recruit well engaged community members to potential newcomers who have the time to volunteer to at-large policy work. To provide justifications to ATLAS meetings, is to have those attended the meeting did actually engaged. Adding to avoid having ATLAS to be a replica of a talk show conference. (JH) Make sure all attendees are actively working on one of the working groups or assigned to one of the programs tor sessions that are held (JH) assign a community member to take notes for their session and this way we could have all programs covered and make it easier for social media and other tools to promote this event. (MM) I spoke to one former ATLAS participant who worked really hard on a particular session and when the advice that came out of that session was "rejected", that person went away, figured there were better things to do. So, the lesson there is to make sure participants feel their time has been well spent and that they contributed to something worthwhile.
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

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 (AC) At-Large on the Road approach... (NA) Rethinking of the outreach programs and in how to conduct them in order to increase its effectiveness. (NA) Trying different approach to reduce the cost and at the same time engage at-large community members. Preparing a toolkit to ALSes in how to conduct an outreach and readymade templates. Allocate travel support to outstanding members of the ALSes to conduct the outreach regional or national events activities on behalf of the ALAC/RALOs LT, such approach will be a bottom-up and produce more engagements. (MM) Outreach in a specific locality has to be done on a regular basis. One-offs don't work. My ideal program would be one that does 2-3 per year reaching some of the same people and a few new ones. So the content has to remain fresh and current.
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

Issue #13 Lead: Glenn McKnight	Need more systematic RALO participation in regional events
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	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 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 (NA) Per my point for issue #12, the more ALSes are engaged in the outreach activities on the local level the more closer At-large gets to its objectives. (NA) The format and the agenda items of RALOs monthly meeting has to tailored to discuss with the ALSes attendees the latest issues and what they have to say about it and put minimal time to convey important updates that is relevant to them.
Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation	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.)
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?	Joint implementation - At-Large O&E S/C needs support from GSE especially when it comes to Community Outreach
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 Consistent ICANN funding for CROP Flexibility and nimble response from staff on approvals Up to date Wiki page of funders, requirements and deadlines Up to date marketing materials Promotion on Social Media of ATLARGE participation Ownership of Grant software Grant Station
Expected budget implications
Proposed implementation steps:	A full disclosure of all the ICANN Global

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #13

Lead: Glenn McKnight

Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement

An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities

Consistent ICANN funding for CROP

Flexibility and nimble response from staff on approvals

Up to date Wiki page of funders, requirements and deadlines

Up to date marketing materials

Promotion on Social Media of ATLARGE participation

Ownership of Grant software Grant Station

A full disclosure of all the ICANN gobal and ICANN regional events formatted in an easy to access monthly calendar

Use of RALO templates for completion of regional plans and mentoring to accelerate the completion and endorsement of regional outreach plans

Document and share any valuable lessons learnt from Outreach and Engagement efforts

Access to a pool of multilingual e-flyers and print materials for events

Comprehensive list of non ICANN funding opportunities to share with the ATLARGE community

Followup strategy of all leads

Need more systematic RALO participation in regional events
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	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 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 (NA) Per my point for issue #12, the more ALSes are engaged in the outreach activities on the local level the more closer At-large gets to its objectives. (NA) The format and the agenda items of RALOs monthly meeting has to tailored to discuss with the ALSes attendees the latest issues and what they have to say about it and put minimal time to convey important updates that is relevant to them.
Status of improvement effort / staff lead	Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation	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.) A full disclosure of all the ICANN gobal and ICANN regional events formatted in an easy to access monthly calendar Use of RALO templates for completion of regional plans and mentoring to accelerate the completion and endorsement of regional outreach plans Document and share any valuable lessons learnt from Outreach and Engagement efforts Access to a pool of multilingual e-flyers and print materials for events Comprehensive list of non ICANN funding opportunities to share with the ATLARGE community Followup strategy of all leads
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?	Joint implementation - At-Large O&E S/C needs support from GSE especially when it comes to Community Outreach
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)	Expected budget implications	Proposed implementation steps:

Continuous Improvement(s)
Metrics
How long will it take to implement this plan?

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #14 Lead: Alan Greenberg	Need for an innovative approach to funding a revitalized At-Large.
Final Proposal as approved by the Board	It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds.
Prioritization	3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)
ARIWG comments	(NA) Study and evaluate at-large earlier budgets to analyze how to conduct the same activities more efficiently with less cost.
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#14Issue#15

Toggle Cloak

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue

#14

#15

Lead:

Alan Greenberg

Maureen Hilyard

Need

for an innovative approach to funding a revitalized At-Large.

Final Proposal as approved by the Board

It is the understanding of the ALAC that At-Large may only be funded from ICANN operational funds.

Prioritization

3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority)

ARIWG comments

(NA) Study and evaluate at-large earlier budgets to analyze how to conduct the same activities more efficiently with less cost.

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

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 - 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

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

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

(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.

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#16

Toggle Cloak

to an ICANN meeting with a good potential for future involvement, we have done so.” was there a measurement of the success rates of these program? How many of those benefited from these programs continued to be engaged in ICANN SO/ACs? (NA) A rubric is needed to make sure those invited would be worth the investment. (JH) More collaboration with Local GSE who attend many events and could provide ALSes with additional opportunities to outreach and engage at a local level with minimal travel needed.
Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)
Expected budget implications
Proposed implementation steps:	Clarify annual budget support for outreach and engagement activities for ALAC to coordinate outreach to individual internet users Clarify ICANN's monitoring and evaluation procedures relating to O&E activities, as they may pertain to potential for future funding Present an annual schedule of At-Large O&E activities (with metrics) for the ALAC annual report (including funding source for each activity).
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

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 legitimize 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. (NA) the above comments is well written and has to be carried forward to all RALOs and their ALSes. (MM) I organized an outreach event last February and submitted a report to ICANN staff which contained metrics. I am sure other people do this too. So, that what happens to that stuff at the moment?
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 (JC) Selection of methodology for scoring identified performance metrics.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)	(JC) Tool(s) for collecting each identified performance metric (JC) Staff to assist in monitoring and collection of data relevant to each identified performance metric (JC) Methodology for scoring each identified/collected performance metric (JC) Procedure for dealing with changes in data collection, solution
Expected budget implications
Proposed implementation steps:	1. The Metrics WG will resume to discuss and decide on performance metrics to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019; as well as how the data will be collected, scored, monitored and evaluated 2. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide appropriate metrics that will assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal 3. Each of the three streams of At-Large activity (Organisational, Policy and O&E) will establish a goal with measurable objectives which can evaluated at the end of the year to assess achievement of the work stream objectives during the year.
Continuous Improvement(s)	(JC) Review of solution post implementation to establish the effectiveness and fairness in achievement of the objective, as well as majority support of the At-Large community for the same. (MH) some metrics which have been suggested but still yet to be discussed

Cloak

NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG

Issue #16

Lead: Maureen Hilyard

1. Each of the items in this implementation plan is expected to provide metrics that will assess the achievement of the objective of the approved proposal, as well as some long term measurable associated with metrics as an activity in itself

2. Each task that the At-Large community is involved in will require metrics in order to assess the achievement of key milestones as well as of the level of achievement of the entire activity

3. In order to identify participants who will qualify for participation in ATLASIII in Montreal in 2019, performance metrics will be used to assess each individual:. (MH - relevant discussion point - they were ideas that came up during one of the logistics meetings)JC) 4. Post implementation review activity and timeframe for the same.

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 legitimize 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. (NA) the above comments is well written and has to be carried forward to all RALOs and their ALSes.
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 (JC) Selection of methodology for scoring identified performance metrics.
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other?
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools)	(JC) Tool(s) for collecting each identified performance metric (JC) Staff to assist in monitoring and collection of data relevant to each identified performance metric (JC) Methodology for scoring each identified/collected performance metric (JC) Procedure for dealing with changes in data collection, solution
Expected budget implications	Proposed implementation steps:	recorded attendance of regional as well as general At-Large meetings and involvements, evidence of active participation in and meaningful contribution to these meetings evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved policy recommendations evidence of active participation and meaningful contribution to policy or other statements that At-Large is requested to participate in evidence of active engagement in the distribution of information about ICANN and its activities at local. national or regional level evidence of mentorship support given to colleagues, or the development of resources, to build further knowledge and understanding of the work of ICANN within the regions (JC) I would suggest bulleted items under point 3 be identified performance metrics while we consider that methodology or combination of performance metrics should be used for assessment. Some At-Large folks are not in the position to meet all metrics so a fair methodology is needed for scoring	.	(	Continuous Improvement(s)	(JC) Review of solution post implementation to establish the effectiveness and fairness in achievement of the objective, as well as majority support of the At-Large community for the same MM) I don't know about "evidence of specific advocacy of at-large approved recommendations.. I would rather say evidence of explanation of such recommendations.
Metrics	(JC) Level of support by the At-Large community
How long will it take to implement this plan?

...

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 93

New Version Current

Key

Issues #1 - #16:

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies -

Issue#1
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies -

Issue#7
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16
Toggle Cloak

Content

Space Tools

Page History

Versions Compared

Old Version 93

New Version Current

Key

Issues #1 - #16:

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies -

Issue#1 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies -

Issue#7 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13 Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16 Toggle Cloak

Issue#1
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4
Toggle Cloak

Issue#7
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13
Toggle Cloak

ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16
Toggle Cloak