AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation | ALAC should be more selective in the amount of advice it seeks to offer, focusing on those issues which might have the greatest impact upon the end user community, and going for quality rather than quantity. ALAC should develop a more transparent process for distinguishing between different types of advice, and publish that advice on the At-Large website. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Issue Identified | Quality vs quantity of ALAC advice produced. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does ALAC Support Recommendation? | Support | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning. | Not Applicable | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
If ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation? If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation. | Not Applicable | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prioritization | Medium Priority | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ALAC and Working Party At-Large Comments | The ALAC already focuses on quality vs quantity and as a rule only issue comments that the ALAC believes are important to ICANN and users. This has been a very conscious policy that has evolved over several years. Records over the last five years demonstrate this.
While ALAC responses involving community input are usually quite comprehensive, a small proportion were simply supportive statements where the ALAC felt a nominal response was advisable but did not warrant any substantive effort. Similarly, advice to the Board composed just a small fraction (fewer than five such statements in the last several years) of the overall documents drafted. The ALAC believes it is far more desirable to influence the policy development processes before issues come to the Board, than to advise the Board after the fact when it may have little latitude to alter the outcome. It has been the general practice of the ALAC, that when a public comment issue arises, the ALAC will identify a penholder who, often with others, is prepared to take responsibility for initially assessing if there is a significant user-impact reason for further investigation and community consultation. If this is the case, then the writing team collects and organises data to put together an appropriate advisory statement or comment for consideration and formal endorsement by the ALAC, before the response is returned to the relevant section of ICANN. This is a time-consuming process, inviting members from across At-Large each time, to contribute to the many different subject areas for which ALAC is tasked to research and provide appropriate advice. The ALAC also encourages RALOs and ALSes to comment. The ALAC acknowledges that its web site does not always fully represent the diverse nature of its various statements. Ensuring that this does will be important as new workers become involved in At-Large. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible Dependencies | Availability of Staff resources | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Who Will Implement? | Staff with input from At-Large Leadership. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Resource Requirements | ICANN Staff in support of the development of taxonomy that categorizes various ALAC Statements, as well as the improvement of the At-Large website | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Budget Effects impact? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Implementation Timeline | Six months. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed Implementation Steps | Staff to identify areas of the website needing improvement to be reviewed by At-large Leadership prior to implementation |
...
