ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies Workspace

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.

(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)

1. 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.
2. Identify the specifics of processes and practices used to date.
3. Identification of opportunities for process improvement or modification
4. Development of proposal for reenvisioning any processes and practices to be discussed by ALAC / At-Large and those utilising ALAC advice.
5. 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.

1. Continue and expand the development of webinars to educate the at-large community on the policy considerations of the ICANN community
2. Draw a bright line distinction between individual and at-large policy advice
3. Ensure that at-large representatives to WGs and PDPs are aware of and clear on those distinctions when speaking for the at-large
4. Reimagine the process of advice prioritization by
   
   1. Focusing on the perspective of the typical end user (as defined by activities not specific groups of end users)
   2. Being disciplined NOT to develop advice when there is no unique "end user" perspective to bring to the discussion (like an amicus brief)
   3. Using the newly formed policy working group (CPWG) as an initial filter and in turn make recommendations to the community on prioritization
   4. Seek feedback from regional leaders on prioritization advice
5. Reimagine the process of advice/policy development by
   1. Using the CWPG to formulate an initial perspective on a particular ICANN policy area
   2. Use the regional leaders to socialize and receive feedback on that perspective
   3. only THEN identify a pen holder to draft advice from THAT perspective
   4. finally, submit that draft for open comment by the at-large community
6. Reimagine the participation of non-English speakers in at-large policy/advice development by
   1. Continue to develop "issue briefs" in multiple languages to assist in education of non-English speakers
   2. Employ simultaneous translation on CPWG calls
   3. Continue and expand staff use as proofreaders for non-English fluent drafters before drafts are made public
   4. Employee translators for drafts drafted in a language other than English

1. Number of advice drafts that result from this process (as opposed to the current process of random volunteers)
2. Number of attempts to get feedback of the larger community
3. Quantity of respondents to attempts to seek feedback
4. Number of at-large community participants in policy/advice development
5. Number of non-fluent English speakers engaged in policy/advice development

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

(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?

1. Consider further use of staff as proofreaders for non-native English speakers
2. Consider use of staff as translators for non-english participants in advice development
3. Consider further use of staff to present issues on webinars
4. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in being the librarian for At-Large's policy repository
5. (JC) Consider knowledge of staff in actual issues of policy considered by At-Large
6. (JC) Consider capacity of staff in monitoring and applying commentary contributions by At-Large community members through various tools / channels, as well as usage of tools for facilitating such contributions
7. (JC) Performance review

1. (JC) Identify what policy support activities ALAC / At-Large needs first

1. (JC) Performance review

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.

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.

Many of the issues raised have already been addressed in some way by the Incoming Chair. The following steps have been covered:

1. An Organigram has been developed to show a new At-Large Leadership model that is more inclusive and collaborative, as well as being more transparent and accountable. 

2. The Organigram demonstrates how leadership roles are dispersed among ALAC and Regional Leaders, as well as to key leads who take responsibility for the core tasks of At-Large - namely, Development of Policy Advice; Outreach and Engagement; and Organisational Matters 

3. Regional Leaders  have been incorporated into what is now the At-Large Leadership Team to enable them to share in ALAC discussions about key issues, and then to share any key messages with their regional members.

4. At-Large Leadership team meetings will be open to the ALAC and the public unless there are specific, usually personnel, issues to be discussed (as per any ALAC meeting). These matters will be discussed in camera.

5. A specific page on the At-Large Website will display the organigram which will be regularly updated with regards to current Working Groups and appointees to various roles that are allocated by the vote of the ALAC.

6. Roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership within At-Large will be more clearly defined on a page set aside for this purpose on the website, and available to all.

7. Staff will be assigned to the steps #5 and #6 as per Implementation Task #1 which is related to At-Large Wikis and the Website, and the work of At-Large.. 

Any changes to personnel involvement will be recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place

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

(MH) Collaboration advised due to relationship of this issue with Item issue #1 - Quality vs quantity of policy advice

(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

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

(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.

The ALAC Technology Taskforce regularly reviews various communications tools with the aim of improving At-Large participation. The At-Large Community is very diverse and the selection of any new tools must accommodate this diversity. We will also need to continue to investigate how we can overcome the lack of affordable communications for many of our participants and future participants.

(MH) This item also highlights how we can use what communication channels are available to disseminate important messages out to the wider public as well as the At-Large Community.

Some collaboration with the social media items (#8 & #9) but also with the task teams working on areas #5, #12. #13 and #15 would be appropriate, to enhance the work that is being done in O&E

As well as some metrics to assess the effectiveness of any communication channels that we implement. For example is there any way we can check how often Capacity building webinars are being accessed after their real-time presentation? Also if transcripts or recordings are being accessed by participants who cannot attend the meetings in real-time. Are their current formats relevant to what our target audiences need in order to be informed?

(Satish) Some RALOs bring out their periodic newsletters, which are useful in providing information (including policy updates and progress of initiatives) to their community. I'd like to suggest an At-Large-wide newsletter that can periodically update the At-Large community as a whole, besides also informing other AC/SOs on the activities of ALAC.

(AC) A trimester newsletter (depending on resources) could be used as an O&E tool, as well as inform the At-Large community.

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.

(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.

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.

(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...

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.

(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

• 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.)

• Secure and adequate ICANN funding for Outreach and Engagement
• An integrated calendar of ICANN events and meetings to coincide with RALO activities

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

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.

(MH) Collaboration and coordination with Issue Teams #5, #12,and #13 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

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.

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 legitimate (JC: 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.

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.

• (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

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:

• 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.

(JC) 4. Post implementation review activity and timeframe for the same.

1. (JC) Level of support by the At-Large community