This Workspace will include all activities related to the implementation of recommendations and observations within the Second At-Large Summit (ATLAS II) Declaration.
ATLAS II Declaration
ATLAS II Group Reports
***************
ATLAS II Debrief conference call: Friday 22 August 2014
***************
Post-ATLAS II Implementation
Recommendations
Rec. | Implementation Task | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ICANN should continue to support outreach programmes that engage a broader audience, in order to reinforce participation from all stakeholders. | ||
| 2 | ICANN should increase support (budget, staff) to programmes having brought valuable members to the community. | ||
| 3 | ICANN should continue to shape an accountability model reaching not only Board members but all parts of the ICANN community, in order to develop a more transparent and productive environment | ||
| 4 | ICANN should study the possibility of enhancing and increasing the role of Liaisons between its different Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations (AC/SOs) to do away with the “silo culture”. | ||
| 5 | ICANN should examine how best to ensure that end-users remain at the heart of the accountability process in all aspects pertaining to the transition of stewardship of the IANA function. | ||
| 6 | ICANN’s MSM should serve as the reference in encouraging all participants (individuals or parties) to declare and update existing or potential conflicts-of-interest, each time a vote takes place or consensus is sought. | ||
| 7 | A periodic review of ICANN's MSM should be performed to ensure that the processes and the composition of ICANN’s constituent parts adequately address the relevant decision-making requirements in the Corporation | ||
| 8 | The ALAC has the duty to keep track of action taken on all of the above recommendations. | ||
| 9 | ICANN should open regional offices with a clear strategy, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the areas where the access to the Internet is growing, and where such growth is more likely to occur. | ||
| 10 | The next evolution of language services must adopt further extension of live scribing for all meetings and generally extend the current interpretation and translation processes and make translation available in a timely manner. | ||
| 11 | ICANN must implement a range of services to facilitate access according to various criteria (gender; cultural diversity) and user needs (disabilities, etc…). | ||
| 12 | In collaboration with At-Large Structures, ICANN should put in place campaigns to raise awareness and extend education programmes across underrepresented regions. | ||
| 13 | ICANN should review the overall balance of stakeholder representation to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to all views, proportionally to their scope and relevance. | ||
| 14 | ICANN should adjust its contractual framework to minimize conflict between its requirements and relevant national laws. | ||
| 15 | ICANN should examine the possibility of modifying its legal structure befitting a truly global organization, and examine appropriate legal and organizational solutions. | ||
| 16 | ICANN needs to improve their direct communications regardless of time zones. | ||
| 17 | ICANN needs to be sensitive to the fact that social media are blocked in certain countries and, in conjunction with technical bodies, promote credible alternatives | ||
| 18 | Support end-users to take part in policy development. | ||
| 19 | Eliminate barriers to participation and engagement with ICANN processes and practices. | ||
| 20 | Input the user perspective, wherever necessary, to advance accountability, transparency and policy development within ICANN. | ||
| 21 | Encourage public campaigns on using the Internet for education, information, creativity and empowerment. | ||
| 22 | Members of the general public should be able to participate in ICANN on an issue-by-issue basis. Information on the ICANN website should, where practical, be in clear and non-technical language. | ||
| 23 | The roles and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should be expanded. The ICANN website should provide a clear and simple way for the public to make complaints. | ||
| 24 | Both the areas of the Ombudsman and Contractual Compliance should report regularly on the complaints they received, resolved, pending resolution and actions taken to address issues raised by unresolved complaints. | ||
| 25 | To enhance ICANN's community effort on building a culture of Transparency and Accountability, as called for in the recommendations of ATRT2, oversight of the Board's decisions now requires an effective mechanism of checks and balances, capable of providing true multi-stakeholder oversight and effective remedies. | ||
| 26 | Current policy management processes within ICANN are insufficient. ICANN must implement a workable Policy Management Process System, available for use across the SO/ACs, in order to: • enhance Knowledge Management, • improve the effectiveness of all ICANN volunteer communities, • improve cross-community policy-specific activity, • enhance policy development metrics, • facilitate multilingual engagement, • create a taxonomy of policy categories, • provide policy development history as an aid for newcomers. | ||
| 27 | The Board must implement ATRT2 Recommendation 9.1, regarding Formal Advice from Advisory Committees. | ||
| 28 | The ALAC should work with all RALOs and ALSes to map the current expertise and interests in their membership, to identify Subject Matter Experts and facilitate policy communication. | ||
| 29 | The ALAC should implement an automated system for tracking topics of interest currently being discussed among the various RALOs, and accessible by everyone. | ||
| 30 | For each Public Comment process, SOs and ACs should be adequately resourced to produce impact statements. | ||
| 31 | ICANN and the ALAC should investigate the use of simple tools and methods to facilitate participation in public comments, and the use of crowdsourcing. | ||
| 32 | ICANN should ensure that all acronyms, terminology in its materials are clearly defined in simpler terms. | ||
| 33 | The ALAC should arrange more At-Large Capacity Building Webinars. | ||
| 34 | In collaboration with the global Internet user community, the ALAC shall reiterate the link between the fundamental rights of Internet users, and the Public Interest. | ||
| 35 | The ICANN Board should hold a minimum of one conference call with the At-Large Community in between ICANN Public Meetings. | ||
| 36 | The At-Large Community should envisage conference calls with other ACs and SOs in between ICANN public meetings to improve collaboration and engagement. | ||
| 37 | Additional logistical support from ICANN is needed to improve the At-Large wiki. | ||
| 38 | ICANN should ensure that its Beginner Guides are easily accessible. | ||
| 39 | ICANN should encourage “open data” best practices that foster re-use of the information by any third party. | ||
| 40 | ICANN should offer a process similar to the Community Regional Outreach Pilot Program (CROPP), but applicable to short lead-time budget requests not related to travel. | ||
| 41 | The ALAC should work with the ICANN Board in seeking additional sources of funding for At-Large activities. | ||
| 42 | ICANN should enable annual face-to-face RALO assemblies, either at ICANN regional offices or in concert with regional events. | ||
| 43 | RALOs should encourage their inactive ALS representatives to comply with ALAC minimum participation requirements. |
Observations:
Rec. | Implementation Task | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | As no single MSM can serve as a universal reference, the community must foster consideration and innovation of different models, allowing the best possible implementation of MSM for any particular decision-making requirement; | ||
| 2 | The composition, segmentation ("silos") and diversity of ICANN’s constituent parts should be flexible, as different areas of policy may call for different groupings of interested communities. | ||
| 3 | Cross-community cooperation should be the default mode; segmentation should only be engaged when the MSM proves ineffective; | ||
| 4 | The MSM requires efficient processes, clarity of scope, a sufficiently open membership, as well as enhanced engagement between different parts of the Internet ecosystem. | ||
| 5 | Fellowship programmes should be enhanced to expand eligibility of participants to disadvantaged people and communities everywhere. | ||
| 6 | Focus on education, digital literacy and the empowerment of the user community and, where possible, on building, maintaining and operating computers & programmes. | ||
| 7 | Promote, globally, the fundamental rights of Internet users, and thus re-establish trust in the Internet; demand effective protection against arbitrary and pervasive surveillance, collection, treatment, handling and use of personal data; permit users to obtain the deletion of their private data from servers and databases; ensure compatibility between the rights enjoyed by users and the terms of service of private companies serving the Internet community. | ||
| 8 | Obtain openness and transparency from each country’s ccTLD (or Country Code) operator. | ||
| 9 | Promote the use, by individuals and organizations, of secure, efficient, easy-to-use interoperable online identity credentials; promote web standards favouring user autonomy and security (e.g. XML and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), with the active participation of impacted communities. | ||
| 10 | Foster substantial local content, beyond infotainment; ensure access to truthful information and knowledge. |
Resources
