Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0


Participants:  Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Gareth Shearman, Dave Kissoondoyal, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Fouad Bajwa, Sylvia Herlein Leite, Gareth Shearman, Darlene Thompson, Cintra Sooknanan, Fatimata Seye Sylla

Apologies:  Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Charles Mok, Sergio Salinas Porto

Absent:  Freddy Linares Torres, Shaarawy Abd Elbaky, James Corbin

Staff:  Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White

Due to Olivier’s apology and a problem on Tijani’s phone line, Cheryl chaired the meeting.


1.  Roll call – 2 min

2.  Review of AIs from 02 Feb 2011 meeting -- Co-Chairs, 5 min

a)  Dev to create process diagram(s) regarding:

  • Recommendation task 5.1.1 (Review current processes within At-Large used to contribute to strategic planning), with Cheryl providing description, as needed, of previous planning processes (at time of initial review); and
  • Recommendation task 5.1.2 (Propose measures to eliminate any barriers identified in 5.1.1), with Olivier’s assistance. 

      -  Completed.

b)  Heidi to research and advise WT C on Recommendation task 5.3 (Review ongoing At-Large staff support levels and budget allocations in FY2009-2010 -- updated to FY2011 and requests for FY2012 -- and increase support as provided throughout this project, consistent with recommendations in Final Report).

      -  Completed.

c)  Seth to research and advise WT C on whether there is an ongoing need for Recommendation task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement).

      -  In progress.  Awaiting clarification.

At the time of the ALAC Review, the ALAC was largely in the dark regarding its own annual budgeting, including the budgeting of staff support.  Today, that situation has largely changed, and the ALAC is kept apprised of what resources cost, what can be offered to it and not, etc.

In addition, the continued improvement in the relationship between the ALAC and staff (called for in the Final Report, p. 11) – that is, the At-Large staff, Policy staff, and the upper management of both -- has occurred to the ALAC’s full satisfaction. 

The most specific intent of the recommendation was to ensure that the loss of a staff member would not affect the ALAC’s budget – i.e., that the staff member would simply be replaced, not that the budget for that staff member would be taken away from the ALAC.  In fact, today, given the ALAC’s input into ICANN’s budget process (as well as the ALAC’s productive relationship with ICANN staff), the ALAC feels there are already adequate safeguards in place to ensure the continuity of its staff support.

For these reasons, the ALAC and WT C feel there’s no longer a need for the ALAC to develop an annual support agreement with the staff. 

>>  AI:  Seth to ask ICANN Legal if WT C still needs to work on implementation of Recommendation task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement).

d)  Seth to place on WT C’s agenda for 16 February 2011 the following: 

      -  Completed.

e)  Each WT C member to:

  • Review (a) WT's own contributions to SWOT Analyses (ver 2) and (b) the tasks listed in WT C’s Simplified Outline; and
  • Decide before next meeting (a) which SWOT points apply to which recommendation tasks and (b) what next steps are indicated by this matching (“mapping”).
    (This work can be discussed via the WT C mailing list before being discussed in the next meeting.  Olivier is asking members to come to the meeting with ideas already formulated.)

      -  Completed.

f)  Matthias (a) to remind the RALO SWOT coordinators of their deadlines and (b) to point out to them that, since the SWOT tables are already rather full, it’s fine if their input simply is that they agree with the points already there.

      -  Completed.


3.  New process diagrams for WT C recommendations – Dev, 15 min.

   -  See:  Before Strategy and Budget_ver 1

                Now Strategy_ver 1

                Now Budget_ver 1

Before Strategy and Budget_ver 1

This diagram is actually made up of two separate diagrams – one represents the ALAC’s strategic planning, the other represents the ALAC’s financial planning, both before FY2012.

They accurately depict what Cheryl remembers the processes to be in 2010-11 only.  Note that these diagrams do not represent the processes in 2007-09.

Suggested change that needs to be made: 

  • Staff input should be added to the financial planning diagram.  In 2010-11, this was true especially for basic community services (teleconferencing, etc.).  And in 2012 (as well as going forward), it was even increased.

Now Strategy_ver 1

This diagram depicts the ALAC’s process of developing its own and contributing to ICANN’s strategic planning for FY2012 (that is, as of now).

Suggested changes that need to be made:

  • Title should be changed to “Current Processes Used to Contribute to Strategic Planning as of FY12.”
  • Consider changing box “Confirmed ICANN strategy“ to “Revised draft Strategic Plan is posted for Public Comment.”
  • In FY12 process, it went to RALOs after box “ALAC reviews and submits comments” – not after box “Confirmed ICANN strategy.”
  • Must add staff input.  Actually, At-Large staff input in FY12 process was minimal.  Even regarding administrative work, most was done by the new COO’s assistant.
    • Would be good if there is a way to indicate that At-Large staff input is minimal.

Now Budget_ver 1

This diagram depicts the ALAC’s process of developing its own and contributing to ICANN’s budget planning for FY2012 (that is, as of now).

Suggested changes that need to be made:

  • Title should be changed to “Current Processes Used to Contribute to Budget Planning as of FY12.”
  • Must add staff input.  Staff had much more input in FY12 process, and it will increase in the future.  And, in FY12 process, regarding administrative work, At-Large staff did it all.
    • Would be good if there is a way to indicate that At-Large staff input is large.
    • Need to add that the budget goes into the normal ICANN process (draft budget, public comments, Board adoption, etc.)
      • Good if could add this to diagram without taking emphasis away from, for WT C’s purposes, more important part of diagram – the new ALAC/At-Large aspects of the process.

It might look, in diagram, as though RALOs are competing for funds.  To the extent that might be true, it is one reason that RALO representation has been increased in the ALAC’s Subcommittee on Finance and Budget – to integrate the RALOs’ efforts and increase their interaction.

>>  AI:  Dev to make discussed changes to the three WT C process diagrams.

4.  Determination of WT C’s next steps:  Based simply on a review of subtasks under Rec. 6 (note:  Rec. 5 done last meeting) -- Co-Chairs, 15 min.

Rec 6 (More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At-Large activities.)


Task 6.1 (Review of additional At-Large information that would be useful, subsequent to improvements in financial reporting in FY2009-2010 – and, given the current cycle, FY2012)

The information flow regarding financial planning has much improved – both within the At-Large structure (between the ALAC, RALOs, and ALSes) and between ICANN and the ALAC.  There is now no particular information that the ALAC is not getting, whether from the increased RALO participation or coming from ICANN, that is needed to improve its financial reporting and planning.

Examples of the improved financial-planning information now coming from ICANN, compared to at the time of the ALAC Review, regarding financial planning include the cost of translations, whose budget it comes from, etc.)  This improvement began in the FY09-10 cycle and further increased, significantly, in the FY12 cycle.  


Task 6.2 (Regarding meeting accommodations, ensure that At-Large representatives are given treatment equal to that of other funded communities)

  • WT C is fully satisfied that At-Large is now treated equally to the other communities.  The equal treatment is now codified into the operations of ICANN Constituency Travel Support
  • WT C may want to propose a way of remaining vigilant about this point:  There is a review of the Travel Guidelines coming up (in spring).  The ALAC might want to literally request that this equal treatment be codified into this document.  (When the ALAC Review originally occurred, there were likely no such Guidelines at all.)

Overall proposal for all ALAC Improvements

Perhaps the ALAC should propose that the job description of the staff position of Director of At-Large (now held by Heidi) include the responsibility of ensuring that the At-Large Improvements are sustained by reviewing them as required.  

5.  Determination of WT C’s next steps:  Based on matching (“mapping”) of SWOT points thus far (i.e., those contributed to SWOTs by WT C itself) to individual Rec. 5 & 6 subtasks – Co-Chairs, 15 min. 

  • Alternatively, WT might want to wait for RALO input and do all together.

It was decided that this agenda item would be moved to the next meeting.

AI:  Seth to put onto agenda for next meeting:  Matching of SWOT points (i.e., those contributed to by WT C, plus any contributed by RALOs) to individual Rec. 5 & 6 subtasks.

6.  Any other business -- Co-Chairs, 5 min

No other business was introduced.

7.  Confirmation of next meeting:  Wed, 2 Mar 2011, at 19:00 UTC – Co-Chairs, 2 min

It was decided the next meeting would start on 19:15 UTC on Wed, 2 Mar 2011, to avoid a possible conflict in case that day’s AFRALO meeting runs late.