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 demonstration purposes and discussion within the AIRWG
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. |
Prioritization | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority) |
ARIWG comments | |
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 | None noted as at end Sept 2018 |
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: |
|
Continuous Improvement(s) | |
Metrics |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#2
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
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. |
---|---|
Final Proposal as approved by the Board | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#3
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #3 | 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. |
---|---|
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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#4
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Final Proposal as approved by the Board - Issue #4 | 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 | |
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 as part of her preparation for future Leadership of At-Large. 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 Wiki and 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 ti the ALAC and to other personnel and working groups or other activities related to the charts and other information |
Metrics | Any changes to personnel involvem are recorded on the wiki spaces within one month of the change taking place |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#5
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #5 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#6
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #6 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#7
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #7 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#8
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFTonly, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #8 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#9
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #9 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#10
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #10 | 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 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#11
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #11 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#12
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #12 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#13
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #13 | 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) |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#14
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #14 | 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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#15
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #15 | 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 | |
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 |
ARIWG Prioritization and Dependencies - Issue#16
NOTE: text in cells below shown in colour is DRAFT only, for discussion by the AIRWG
Issue #16 | 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 | 1:1:1 (Low resource needs : Low risk ; 1st priority group) |
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 |