Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments Open | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12.12.2014 | ICANN Draft Five-Year Operating Plan For translated versions, please check this page | ADOPTED 15Y, 0N, 0A | 17.12.2014 | 22.12.2014 23:59 UTC | 05.01.2015 23:59 UTC | 05.01.2015 23:59 UTC | 11.01.2015 | 12.01.2015 23:59 UTC | 13.01.2015 | Carole Cornell Carole Cornell carole.cornell@icann.org | AL-ALAC-ST-0115-01-01-EN |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the pdf document below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Five-Year Operating Plan for FY16-FY20 and hereby submits its comments:
- We are concerned that the document does not take into account the possible impact, if any, that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations. Therefore, we recommend that an assessment be made of the possible impact that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations.
- The document seems to suggest that stakeholder engagement is to be encouraged by staff only. In this regard, our vision is that stakeholder engagement must be a task carried out by the community, including staff, but not just by staff. We therefore recommend that the wording in the document refers to the wider ICANN community, in general, and not only to staff.
- Several goals are suggested to be measured by metrics in which the only indicator refers to documents that deal with planning but not with implementation. We therefore recommend that metrics focus not only on planning but also on implementing and that implementation metrics be included in those strategic objectives or goals where fit. We recommend the metrics to be developed based on SMART criteria (i.e. specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-related).
- We have repeatedly recommended that awareness and participation fostering efforts must be done at local, regional and international levels, especially with underrepresented stakeholders, regardless of their economic strength or development. We therefore recommend that engagement is encouraged with these communities and at these three levels, establishing metrics that reflect the scope of action not only with international organizations but also with regional and local entities.
- The document states that “Comprehensive regional engagement plans and strategies covering most ICANN regions” will be established in phase 1 for FY16. While we welcome the elaboration of regional engagement plans, we would like to emphasize that these plans should be made for all ICANN regions as opposed to most as stated in the document. We therefore recommend reviewing the wording in order to accommodate the suggested wording and be able to cover all ICANN regions.
The ALAC trusts that these comments will be taken into account to define the final version of ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Five-Year Operating Plan for FY16-FY20 and hereby submits its comments:
We are concerned that the document does not take into account the possible impact, if any, that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations. Therefore, we recommend that an assessment of the possible impact that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations.
The document seems to suggest that stakeholder engagement is to be encouraged by staff only. In this regard, our vision is that stakeholder engagement must be a task carried out by the community, including staff, but not just by staff. We therefore recommend that the wording in the document refers to the wide ICANN community, in general, and not only to staff.
Several goals are suggested to be measured by metrics in which the only indicator refers to documents that deal with planning but not with implementation. We therefore recommend that metrics focus not only in planning but also in implementing and that implementation metrics be included in those strategic objectives or goals where fit. A clear useage SMART results based charts would be recommended.
We have repeatedly recommended that awareness and participation fostering efforts must be done at local, regional and international levels, especially with under represented stakeholders, regardless of their economic strength or development. We therefore recommend that engagement is encouraged with these communities and at these three levels, establishing metrics that reflect the scope of action not only with international organizations but also with regional and local entities.
The ALAC trusts that these comments will be taken into account to define the final version of ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan.
7 Comments
Ariel Liang
Holly Raiche's comment (posted on Nov 28, 2014)
**
Just some initial throughts, and a suggestion: listen to the webinar first. At the end is a discussion of the timetable, including a discussion of when to hold a F2F meeting, and the Singapore meeting is suggested. The participants in the webinar suggest that that schedule is already packed, but, as pointed out, if a F2F meeting is not held then, it will be very costly to have one later - travel costs, etc Also, the idea is to have a working group of about 12 to progress the document - who are knowledgeable about the area and taken from the widest range from SO/ACs - but NOT necessarily representative of stakeholders. My suggestion - an ALAC person should be there, but needs to be very familiar with the document and processes.
The time frame is short for comments - initial comments are due by 14 December!
My quick read of the document notes that this is a five year plan, and that lots will hang off of it - including how funds will be spend, so we need to identify (clarify, enhance, etc) where we fit and have our ideas reflected in this plan. Otherwise, we will be having to make the same arguments, year by year as the plan is updated - worse than if our comments are reflected in the Operating Plan from Day One
That said there are very clear areas we should focus on:
Strategic Goal 1 is to Evolve and Further globalise ICANN. That includes not only ICANN operations but, for us, stakeholder regional engagement - which we should sress can and should be done (at least in part) by the global RALOs and ALSs, since those structures are already in place, so best placed to achieve the goal.
Objective 4 is also something we should concentrate on - promote ICANN's role and multistakeholder approach. Again, that is what we do - and we need to say so. It includes ICANN's participation in Internet Governance - which ALAC people do through attendance at the IGFs, regional IGFs and other regional meetings. So CROPP and other funding can help with this goal. Another part of the objecive is partnership with international organisations - and again, that should not be just ICANN as ICANN, but recognise that it is all of the ALSs that are already part of ICANN.
The other paticularly relevant Objective is 5 - a global public interest framework and global public interest decision making. Again, through ALS participation, that already happens. And we need to point that out.
Finally, they are seeking input on the assumptions (at the end of the Plan), including issues such as having the Plan not be based on revenue coming in, but on the objectives to be achieved, and questions - should a cash figure be determined for a cash reserve, or should it be a percentage of revenue (or set at all)?
Ariel Liang
Leon Sanchez's comment (posted on 08 Dec 2014)
**
I agree with Holly with regards to objective 1. Stakeholder engagement is something that has to be built by both Staff and the ICANN community. I also believe that the metrics for goal 1.2 should not only be the number of strategies but also the number of approaches/meetings with relevant stakeholders as to implement said strategies. Otherwise, our goal will only seem to be planning but not implementing.
With regards to Strategic Objective 2, Goal 2.3, I believe that metrics should include the number of complaints solved by ICANN compliance department compared to those filed by any party. This will give us an idea on how efficiently is ICANN following up with each case and how efficient is enforcement of agreements with Registries and Registrars. This is something that directly impacts end users at different layers.
With regards to strategic objective 4, goal 4.1, if we're talking about encouraging engagement at a national, regional and global levels, then the metrics should be aligned with this same scope. Metrics should include the number of MoUs not only with international organizations but also with local and regional organizations.
With regards to goal 4.2, I believe we should be looking at ways in which ICANN can foster active participation and engagement of GAC members. Having a metric focused on number of GAC members doesn't really mean that those members are actively participating in GAC's discussions. ICANN should work with the GAC to establish a record of GAC members participations and contributions to GAC's work.
Ariel Liang
First draft of the ALAC Statement (same as the document uploaded under the subject line "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED")
**
The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Five-Year Operating Plan for FY16-FY20 and hereby submits its comments:
We are concerned that the document does not take into account the possible impact, if any, that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations. Therefore, we recommend that an assessment of the possible impact that the IANA stewardship transition may have in ICANN’s operations.
The document seems to suggest that stakeholder engagement is to be encouraged by staff only. In this regard, our vision is that stakeholder engagement must be a task carried out by the community, including staff, but not just by staff. We therefore recommend that the wording in the document refers to the wide ICANN community, in general, and not only to staff.
Several goals are suggested to be measured by metrics in which the only indicator refers to documents that deal with planning but not with implementation. We therefore recommend that metrics focus not only in planning but also in implementing and that implementation metrics be included in those strategic objectives or goals where fit. A clear useage SMART results based charts would be recommended.
We have repeatedly recommended that awareness and participation fostering efforts must be done at local, regional and international levels, especially with under represented stakeholders, regardless of their economic strength or development. We therefore recommend that engagement is encouraged with these communities and at these three levels, establishing metrics that reflect the scope of action not only with international organizations but also with regional and local entities.
The ALAC trusts that these comments will be taken into account to define the final version of ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan.
Beran Dondeh Gillen
In Strategic Goal 1.1 under Phasing in FY16 bullet point 2 it states "Comprehensive regional engagement plans and strategies covering most ICANN regions". The keyword here being "most". IMO if ICANN wants to globalise it must ensure all its regions are included. I believe the wording should be changed to reflect "all" ICANN regions instead.
I also agree with Leon on Strategic Objective 2, Goal 2.3, metrics should include the amount of complaints solved and not just keep track of the complaints themselves. That is the only way we can keep track of how ICANN staff are dealing with the complaints.
In Strategic objective 4, goal 4.1
"Encourage engagement with the existing Internet governance ecosystem at national, regional and
global levels. "
I believe that ICANN should not only stop at MOUs but also use the ALSs that At Large have at our disposal to further reach out at the grass root level.
IN THE STATEMENT ITSELF, I Believe the wording can be a bit better:
Bullet point One: Therefore, we recommend that an assessment be made of the possible impact that the IANA stewardship transition may have on ICANN’s operations.
Bullet point Two: We therefore recommend that the wording in the document refer to the wider ICANN community and not only to staff.
Bullet point Three: We therefore recommend that metrics focus not only on planning but also on implementing and that implementation metrics be included in those strategic objectives or goals where fit. A clear usage of SMART results based charts would be recommended.
Glenn McKnight
My comments are integrated in the ALAC comments. I think a short analysis is best and Leon has done a good job summarizing the concerns
G
Maureen Hilyard
Sorry I'm late with my comments but I think the team has done a great job with this summary - great team work. I like how Beran picked up that the original wording indicated that some regions might not be catered for. We need to ensure that opportunities like CROPP continue to enable under-served areas of large regions to be represented in major forums/fora. The statement also acknowledges the contribution to planning and implementation by the wider ICANN community who are the unpaid ambassadors for ICANN out in the regions. Metrics are being created for the volunteers within this community, and I'm assuming that there are metrics for staff as well.
Glenn McKnight
A few things
Perhaps I am wrong I thought the term on page one - Doomsday was being replaced by another term.
The document flows well and it lays out a clear position. As to Maureen Hilyard's comments about Metrics this has always been an interesting challenge given the research on this subject. I like to share a short audio clip on the Power of Listening http://www.cbc.ca/spark/blog/2014/12/21/why-listening-is-more-important-than-talking/ This takes another spin on the metrics issue . As to the metrics for staff I am sure they beat to a different drummer
Kudos to the team