Issue 1 Work Track Leader(s): Jonathan Zuck with staff support Evin Erdoğdu
Issue 1 Work Track Members: TBC
Listing of Biannual reports to the OEC
Template for biannual Reporting of Issue 1
Issue 1 - 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.
1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk : 1st priority)
This is one of the recognised issues that the Community, ALAC and At-Large had already noted the cause of and had prior to the At-Large Review 2 Final At-Large Review Recommendations Feasibility Assessment & Implementation Plan (FAIP) and ARI started to remedy. Specifically, as proposed and approved by the Board, At-Large 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. Further that recently and ongoing ALAC Statements, Public Comments and Advice are clearly classified and that the classification of each type is clear. Fundamentally, this issue is meant to address some confusion inherent in the current presentation of the ALAC document database. Implementation on this matter had already begun prior to ARIWG activity and is part of the ALAC’s continuous improvement process. Work will continue throughout 2019 and 2020 before formal review in 2021. There are two main aspects in this issue to address:
Fundamentally, this issue is meant to address some confusion inherent in the current presentation of the ALAC document database. There are two main issues to address:
Accordingly, At-Large staff together with At-Large leadership, will categorize the existing documents (as advice, public comment, correspondence, etc.) in a more granular fashion and provided enhanced tools with which to filter search results based on these categories. Staff have also created a new field in the database for “End User Issue” and At-Large leadership now populates this field both in current documents and those generated going forward. Additional staff resources are needed for any ongoing work deemed necessary. Initially around 40-50 hours of staff time between January 2019 through to June 2019 has been utilized to improve clarity of wiki and web pages.
When additional staffing resources are made available under Issue 3 Implementation, policy advice development work and communication will be a primary focus of existing staff resource time freed up from other activities. Specifically:
Status of improvement effort / staff lead
Already underway, continuous improvement to continue / Heidi Ullrich; Evin Erdoğdu
Two goals to address under this issue:
(1) Confusion about the type of document (ie “Advice” vs “Comment”)
Completed: Historic ALAC Advice & Comments (found on the At-Large Policy Summary).
Completed: New Executive Summaries: ALAC Policy Comments & Advice page differentiates between ALAC comment, advice and correspondence, with tags and posts since ICANN60.
Completed: ALAC Advice & Comments marked accordingly since ICANN60 on At-Large website (found on At-Large Policy Summary).
(2) The “End user” justification for intervention
Work in progress: ALAC Hot Policy Topics Document (Jonathan Zuck & Joanna Kulesza to present draft at ICANN65)
Completed: New (ongoing) system of ICANN meeting "Talking Points" for At-Large community members (started at ICANN64), and At-Large Policy Workshop(s) (started at ICANN64).
Completed: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) presentation format for penholders, weekly meetings.
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)
Expected budget implications
Initially no additional, beyond already allocated, resources to At-Large.
However, as noted in Issue 3, additional staff resources are needed for any ongoing work deemed necessary.
Proposed implementation steps:
How long will it take to implement this plan?
Implementation on this matter had already begun prior to ARIWG activity and is part of the ALACs continuous improvement process. Work will continue throughout 2019 and 2020 before formal review in 2021.
Issue 1 Progress Chart
NOTE: the example Dashboard Report from WS2 of ICANN Accountability CCWG is an exemplar of the TYPE of dashboard/reporting that we recommend be utilised for reporting ARIWG progress to the ICANN Community as well as for inclusion in aggregated terms to the regular reporting /update to the OEC biannually.
The At-Large Review Implementation dashboard aims to update the ICANN Community about the progress of the work of the At-Large Review Implementation Working Group (ARIWG).
|Work is now completed.|
|Jan 2020 ARIWG Dashboard|
Link to presentation (PDF) of recent activity updates
|Dec 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Nov 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Oct 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Sep 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Aug 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Jul 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Jun 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
Report due to the Board - 23 June
|May 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
Report drafts should be ready by May 23 with sub-tasks completed
Two goals to address under this issue:
|Apr 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
AG to advise JZ/EE on historical ALAC policy statements, to categorize as comments vs advice.
|Mar 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Feb 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|
|Jan 2019 ARIWG Dashboard|