WT C MEETING MINUTES:  02 FEBRUARY 2011

Participants:  Tijani Ben Jemaa, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Gareth Shearman, Dave Kissoondoyal, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Fouad Bajwa, Sylvia Herlein Leite

Absent:  Freddy Linares Torres, Shaarawy Abd Elbaky, James Corbin

Staff:  Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

1.  Roll call – 5 min

2.  Review of AIs from 19 Feb 2011 meeting -- Co-Chairs, 5 min

   a)  Seth to link the Cartagena presentation (and MP3) on the FY12 budget to the WT C workspace.

  • Status:  Completed

   b)  Matthias to send an initial e-mail to the RALO leadership explaining the FY12 budgetary process, including a link to the At-Large FY12 budget workspace, emphasizing the need to relate requests to ICANN’s Strategic Plan, etc.  Then, Matthias to send a follow-up e-mail to anyone in the RALOs with whom he has a good working relationship in order to move the budgetary process forward.

  • Status:  Completed.  The RALO involvement in the FY12 Budget process has been quite successful, with much input and many budget requests received from the RALOs.

   c)  Heidi to add the ALAC Statement on ICANN’s Strategic Plan to the At-Large FY12 budget workspace.

  • Status:  Completed

   d)  Heidi to include on ALAC agenda the appointment of an additional member from each region (not an ALAC member) to the ALAC’s Finance & Budget Subcommittee. 

  • Status:  Completed

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

3.  Deadlines and final reporting – Seth; 5 min

Seth informed WT C of the deadlines and final-reporting information being told to all WTs:

The only deadline important to the SIC and Board was for Recommendation 2 (the At-Large-selected Board member).  The deadline for all the other recommendations has been self-imposed as the end of March 2011.  There will probably be some but not a lot of leeway around that date.  Of course, it would be ideal if all the recommendations could be resolved by the ICANN San Francisco meeting, but it’s likely that some of the WTs are lagging behind that timeline.

We’re looking into the form of the final reporting that will need to be done.  The final reporting to the Board, of course, is the responsibility of the ALAC. 

There’s not much precedent for this final reporting.  We’re one of the first groups to go through the review and implementation cycle.  The original intent of project was that its final report would be a set of recommendations, predictions, and plans that will continue beyond the life of the Improvements project and WTs as continuous improvement.  Note that the actual work of the WTs and the WTs themselves will end – with a hard stop.

While the form of the final report of the Improvements project from the ALAC to the Board   does not have a precedent, the Improvements project’s previous project plan and status report were well received by the Board and SIC, so we could consider sticking to that format.  The format basically is a short report covering each of the 13 Improvements recommendations, with annexes containing any needed details.  But there will be some leeway, up to the ALAC and the WTs’ writers, regarding the form of this reporting.

Cheryl has said that the ALAC would likely appreciate a careful synopsis by each WT that could basically be dropped into its overall report on Improvements.  For some of this synopsis, the WTs could likely refer to their presentations prepared for Cartagena (and now to be delivered in the next ALAC meeting), with some updating added.

4.  Upcoming need to interact with the ALAC – Olivier and Cheryl; 5 min

Olivier and Cheryl informed WT C of the ALAC-interaction information being told to all WTs:

The final output of the WTs will be final proposals made to the ALAC and an accompanying final report.  For WT C, this refers to Recs. 5 and 6.  The work teams need to finalize their proposals and action plans regarding how to implement. 

The WTs will formally begin making their recommendations to the ALAC in San Francisco.  There will be 120 minutes in the ALAC and Regional Leadership Session on Sunday and another 45 minutes during the Wrap-Up on Thursday.  During Sunday, the WTs will here feedback from the RALO.  Likely the procedure will be:

  • The WTs each send their recommendations to the At-Large list before San Francisco so they can be prepared;
  • The WTs each limit their number of slides to three or perhaps one slide per recommendation.

The ALAC will make the final decisions about requesting budgeting for these proposals  based on how they fit into the ALAC and ICANN strategic plans.  So the WTs must translate their ideas into proposals for the ALAC; specifically, the WT needs to look at its proposals under development and decide which are mature enough to bring to the ALAC.

Furthermore, Olivier requested the WTs prioritize any proposals certainly that would need ICANN Bylaw changes and even those that would require RALO Bylaw changes to send to the ALAC as soon as possible.  Such changes take a long time.  Perhaps, if the WTs move quickly and prioritize this group of proposals, the ALAC could handle them in San Francisco.

Olivier also suggested that the WTs consider using the FY12 Budget request template as part of their proposals to the ALAC.  If the WT does not know the actual dollar amount that a proposal would cost, it should just leave that blank.  The ALAC or the Staff can often help with that.

5.  Determination of WT C’s next steps:  Based simply on a review of subtasks under Rec. 5 & 6 (see WT C At-Large Simplified Improvements Outline) – Co-Chairs, 10 min.

  • For example, process diagrams for strategic & financial planning

Dev agreed to create process flowchart diagrams for certain Rec. 5 & 6 subtasks (“tasks”), using Google Diagrams, analogous to those he created for WT D.  (Dev warned that the only complication with Google Diagrams is that no history of revisions is automatically kept, so you must remember to manually make a back-up every now and then.)  Specifically, Dev will start by working on diagrams for Recommendation task 5.1.1 and 5.1.2:

  • Diagram(s) for task 5.1.1 (Review current processes within At-Large used to contribute to strategic planning):
    • This will likely require more than one diagram, because the ICANN planning processes have changed from the time of the review to now – for example, ICANN budgetary planning had been a black hole when the review was done, but now is considerably improved. 
    • Therefore, Cheryl will assist Dev with input regarding what the relevant processes previously looked like at the time of the review.
  • Diagram(s) for task 5.1.2 (Propose measures to eliminate any barriers identified in 5.1.1): 
    • Olivier will assist Dev with this diagram.

>>  AI:  Dev to create process diagram(s) regarding Recommendation task 5.1.1 (Review current processes within At-Large used to contribute to strategic planning), with Cheryl providing description, as needed, of previous planning processes (at time of initial review).

>>  AI:  Dev to create process diagram(s) regarding Recommendation task 5.1.2 (Propose measures to eliminate any barriers identified in 5.1.1), with Olivier’s assistance. 

In a systematic review of the subtasks (“tasks”) under Rec. 5, WT C concluded:

  • Task 5.1 (Strategic planning:  ALAC processes):  Done.
  • Task 5.1.1 (Review current processes within At-Large used to contribute to strategic planning):  Next step is creation of flowchart diagram(s) be Dev, with Cheryl providing description of previous planning processes (as needed) (see above).
  • Task 5.1.1.1 (During 5.1.1 review above, identify any barriers):  Will apply completed SWOT analyses to this subtask.
  • Task 5.1.2 (Propose measures to eliminate any barriers identified in 5.1.1):  Next step is creation of flowchart diagram(s) by Dev, with Olivier assisting (see above).
  • Task 5.3 (Review ongoing At-Large staff support levels and budget allocations in FY2009-2010 and increase support as provided throughout this project, consistent with recommendations in Final Report): 
    • Heidi will be able to help with this task. 
    • The positions of At-Large Coordinator and At-Large Regional Manager are already posted, and the searches are on.
  • Task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement):  Seth should determine if there is an ongoing need for this task by (a) reviewing  Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements (9 June 2009) and (b) consulting with ICANN Legal.

>>  AI:  Heidi to research and advise WT C on Recommendation task 5.3 (Review ongoing At-Large staff support levels and budget allocations in FY2009-2010 -- updated to FY2011 and requests for FY2012 -- and increase support as provided throughout this project, consistent with recommendations in Final Report).

 

>>  AI:  Seth to research and advise WT C on whether there is an ongoing need for Task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement).

The WT decided to place the Rec. 6 portion of this agenda item # 5 on the agenda for its next meeting.

>>  AI:  Seth to place on WT C’s agenda for 16 February 2011 the following:  Determination of Rec. 6 next steps based on review of its subtasks.

6.  Determination of WT C’s next steps:  Based on matching (“mapping”) of SWOT points thus far (i.e., those contributed to SWOTs by WT C itself) to individual Rec. 5 & 6 subtasks – Co-Chairs, 15 min. 

This agenda item was not covered during the meeting.

>>  AI:  Seth to place on WT C’s agenda for 16 February 2011 the following:  Determination of Recs. 5 & 6 next steps based on matching (“mapping”) of SWOT points thus far (contributed by WT C itself) to individual recommendation tasks.

 

>>  AI:  Each WT C member to:

This work can be discussed via the WT C mailing list before being discussed in the next meeting.  Olivier is asking members to come to the meeting with ideas already formulated.

>>  AI:  Matthias (a) to remind the RALO SWOT coordinators of their deadlines and (b) to point out to them that, since the SWOT tables are already rather full, it’s fine if their input simply is that they agree with the points already there.

7.  Any other business -- Co-Chairs, 5 min

Time typically needed for full RALO participation/input

It was discussed that, in order to fully participate, the RALOs often need enough time for two of its regularly scheduled meetings:

  • In the first meeting, the leadership announces/explains the needed participation and the RALO discusses it;
  • In the time before the next meeting, the input or participation work is actually done; and
  • In the second meeting, the work is collected and reviewed before submission.

WT C, in its request for SWOT input from the RALOs, was somewhat guilty of not allowing the RALOs this needed time.  While WT C technically gave the period including two meetings to each RALO, its request was announces so shortly before the first of the two meetings that leadership was not really prepared in that meeting to motivate the input/work. 

For this reason among others, the SWOT input will likely come from RALO leadership, rather than from the ALSes.

Work of Recs. 5 & 6 being done on RALO level

It was discussed that each region might benefit from reviewing its own RALO planning processes in terms of Recs. 5 and 6 (i.e., from asking “what does this mean for us?”).  Future possibilities: 

  • This could be a future AI for the RALOs or for the Secretariats. 
  • Perhaps should be put on the San Francisco agenda for discussion.

8.   Confirmation of next meeting:  Wed, 16 Feb 2011, at 19:00 UTC – Co-Chairs, 5 min

Next meeting was confirmed for this day and time.

The meeting was adjourned.

  • No labels