Introduction to this workspace:
Welcome to the At-Large Review Implementation Prioritisation and Dependencies Workspace.
The Board approved sixteen proposals suggested by the ALAC to resolve as a result of the At-Large Review.
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 finalisation.
This task is expected to be completed by 18 December 2018.
Key related workspace: ARIWG Plan Development
To access the Issue you would like to view, click the Toggle cloak > You will see that a demonstration model Item #1 has been started. But this is only draft and for demonstration purposes only.
Issues #1 - #16:
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#1
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? |
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: |
(NA) 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) |
|
Metrics |
|
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #2 | Uneven contribution of At-Large to a coordinated ICANN strategy for ‘Outreach and Engagement’. Missed opportunities for coordination with other constituencies and ICANN staff. (JC: is this the correct issue statement?) |
---|---|
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 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. (NA) 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: | (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. |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
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 |
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. |
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) |
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#4
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.. |
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
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 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. |
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#6
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. |
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
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #7 Lead: 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 | 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) |
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. |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation | |
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | |
Expected budget implications | |
Proposed implementation steps: | |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #8 Lead: John Laprise | Social media and other Internet-based tools could be used more effectively, and at minimal cost, to continuously survey and channel end-user input into ICANN policy making processes. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | We will continue to investigate opportunities to use Social Media and other online tools that prove useful to bring end-users’ voices to ICANN and vice -versa. However, we caution against seeing social media and online tools as a substitute for other means of participation. We are eager to work with ICANN Organization to understand ICANN’s interests in this area, and the tools available to integrate and communicate our work more effectively. |
Prioritization | 3.3.2. (High resource needs; High risk; #2 priority) |
ARIWG comments | (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 |
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#9
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 |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation | |
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | |
Expected budget implications | |
Proposed implementation steps: | |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #10 Lead: Dev Anand Teelucksingh | 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 | 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. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 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 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. |
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
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the ARIWG
Issue #11 Lead: Olivier Crepin Leblond | While broadly popular, Global ATLAS meetings every 5 years have been difficult to organize and short on effective results. More frequent regional meetings would be more effective in encouraging both policy input and outreach while familiarizing more of At Large with workings of ICANN. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | The ALAC will proceed with its plans as approved by the Board, pending appropriate funding. As with all At-Large activities, there will be an increased focus on tracking and metrics. |
Prioritization | 3.3.1. (High resource needs; High risk; #1 priority) |
ARIWG comments | (MH) ATLASIII, ICANN66 Montreal, Canada in November 2019 will be dependent on the outcomes of this implementation plan. The Metrics Issue #16 also relates to this task. |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation | |
Who will implement the recommendation: ICANN community, ICANN Board, ICANN Organization, other? | |
Anticipated resource requirements (FTEs, tools) | |
Expected budget implications | |
Proposed implementation steps: | |
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics | |
How long will it take to implement this plan? |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12
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... |
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
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 |
Status of improvement effort / staff lead | |
Activities, if any, on which implementation is dependent, or that are dependent on implementation of this recommendation |
(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) |
|
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
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 | |
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
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 | 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) 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 |
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
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. |
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) |
|
Expected budget implications | |
Proposed implementation steps: | 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:
(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. (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. |
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. |
Metrics |
|
How long will it take to implement this plan? |