ICANN
LACRALO
Working Group on Strategic Planning
Final Report
Submitted by: Alejandro Pisanty
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Report
3. Methodological and scheduling considerations
4. SWOT matrix as built in the community Wiki
5. SWOT matrix with explanations of selected points by WG members
6. List of group members
1. Introduction
LACRALO, the Latin American and Caribbean Regional At-Large Organization of ICANN, decided to form a Working Group of its members to aid the community in a Strategic Planning effort.
2. Report
The Working Group, once convened, decided upon the scope of its work, objectives and deliverables, and its internal organization.
The scope of the Working Group was decided to be to prepare the strategic planning exercise for the whole of the community, with inputs for ia SWOT matrix that can be used to start that community-wide exercise, and to provide considerations of method and scheduling for that process.
The deliverables agreed to are the preliminary SWOT matrix, a project-management framework for the strategic planning process, and a method and scheduling proposal.
The WG worked by e-mail and teleconference in English and Spanish, and used Wiki and other online facilities generously provided by ICANN.
The group’s work was delayed by an unexpected set of interruptions, viz. election processes which the group foresaw could significantly change its assessment in the SWOT matrix (as indeed did happen.)
An originally unplanned extension of work was made also in order to provide partial explanatory text to some elements of the SWOT matrix in response to a request made by the Chair of LACRALO.
The SWOT matrix as converged in discussions among the group is provided in this report, as a download of the online document which is kept available on the community Wiki for further use in the next stage.
The explanatory document is included as well in a section of its own. As the reader may note, only a part of the SWOT matrix elements were deemed in need of further explanation.
The WG has done its work in good faith, with frank and open discussions, open to comments and views from the broader community, and with no other view than serving as an enabler to the intense next stage that LACRALO will undertake in due time.
The WG is thankful for the constant, selfless and always pertinent and timely support provided by ICANN staff attached to the At-Large.
3. Methodological and scheduling considerations
The Strategic Planning Working Group recommends that a Strategic Planning exercise be conducted by LACRALO as a whole.
The exercise must be conducted along the lines of the standard strategic planning techniques, having as its first substantial step the establishment of a consensus-based analysis of:
a. Mission and vision for LACRALO, compatible with its function in ICANN and the applicable rules and norms
b. Objectives and Goals of LACRALO
c. Deliverables of the exercise
d. SWOT matrix (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), product of a frank and open discussion oriented to a reasonable degree of consensus but not having unanimity as a goal
e. Analysis matching the SWOT findings to the mission, vision, objectives and goals, the community’s own commitment and resources, and third-party resources available, having as a result a set of programs, plans, projects, actions, and metrics, each program, plan and project with its own set of project-management variables (Scope, Time, Cost – the “Iron Triangle” – as well as human resources, purchasing, risk management and communications. This is the Project Management framework. All projects, plans, and programs must state the way they will be evaluated along the time of their execution.
f. Production of deliverables
There are many possible degrees of granularity and details of the techniques to be used; the WG’s recommendation is to select those that fit the resources of volunteer work, time, and facilitation that the community and ICANN make available.
The WG recommends that the strategic planning workshop be facilitated at a high level of professionalism. The community through its elected representatives will have to determine whether an independent professional facilitator may be brought in and in particular whether this professional may be hired or must be found among volunteers.
The WG recommends that the strategic planning exercise, with adequate preparation, be undertaken in a combined face-to-face and remote-participation format, with at least bilingual facilitation English-Spanish.
Scheduling is to be determined by the community, its elected officials, and ICANN staff, in order to coordinate well with face-to-face meetings, teleconference meetings, elections and other landmark events with which the least interference is desirable in order to allow for the free flow of ideas and an unfettered atmosphere that incentivates collaboration and commitment.
The Working Group emphatically recommends that the SWOT matrix provided be used as a starting point for the workshop.
4. SWOT matrix
In this section, the SWOT matrix is included as converged by the WG in the community Wiki space at the close of the project:
Strengths · ALS in 17 countries in LAC region · Level of expertise; middle · Parliamentary experience of part of the members
| Weaknesses · Subregional divisions · Language barrier to participate in ALAC / At-Large WGs which work in English · Language barrier makes it difficult for ALSes in LA (predominately Spanish) and Caribbean (predominately English) to understand each other and thus colloborate · Politics - groups in LACRALO compete for LACRALO Representatives. Groups can mobilise ALSes to vote in elections but not in ICANN policy development · Different perspectives in how LACRALO should be administered ("sovereign") · Individuals can only participate as observers (AP: I don't see this as a weakness) · Lack of expertise (in knowledge of ICANN, substantive Internet issues, security, Internet Governance, IP addressing and underlying technology) · Lack of parliamentary experience of part of the members · A history of unresolved internal conflict, embodied particularly in the still unresolved General Assembly which was closed but left issues without making progress in them · Complexity of rules · Lack of deep knowledge of the applicable rulesets (Bylaws and others) · Limited linkage of members (as individuals and organizations) to substantive ICANN issues · Leadership failures · Insufficient/deficient management of conflict of interest and transparency · Insistent formation of sub-regional "caucuses" despite protestations to the contrary · Older members, more experienced and trained, do not cooperate |
|
Opportunities § Need for At-Large representation in all 33 Countries in LAC region § End users from a diverse range of countries with respect to history, language, culture, population size could bring unique perspectives into ICANN activities § ICANN program towards geographical diversification (e.g. regional strategic plan, see below) § Fadi Chehade's discourse towards more, and more effective, participation § ALAC's increased standing under Olivier Crepin-Leblond's leadership § Regional strategic plan for LAC region making progress (will soon become a threat if LACRALO doesn't adjust on time) § Increasing interest in Internet Governance at government level (this is also a threat)
| Threats · Dissolution of LACRALO or at least severe questioning by third parties · ALSes/individuals frustrated by the politics become disenfranchised with LACRALO and stop participating in LACRALO · Perception by third parties of LACRALO as an improductive, problematic, and/or benefit-seeking organizations · Need of ICANN to make budgets lean and require justification for spending which LACRALO may not be able to provide sufficiently · Growth of visibility, influence and impact of NCSG, NPOC, and other groupings which compete for legitimacy, representation, attention space, participation in decision-making, budget, and seats in the governing bodies · Questioning of the legitimacy and effectiveness of LACRALO and its members · Lack of interest for the region in active ICANN processes (new gTLDs, IDNs, DNSSEC, Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS, SSAC) · Resistance against "US-based Internet Governance" · Increasing interest in Internet Governance at government and intergovernmental level (this is also an opportunity)
|
|
|
5. SWOT matrix elements with additional explanations
Close to the end of the project undertaken by this Working Group, some members asked to add explanatory elements to the SWOT matrix. They are presented in the following as a list for each of the four quadrants of the matrix, in raw (mixed-language) form, as it is considered that this form will elicit better interactions in the next stage of work.
Fortalezas y Debilidades: actividades que una organización sí puede controlar y que desempeña bien o con deficiencias. Es conveniente enmarcarlas en la parte Administrativa, Finanzas, Contabilidad, Producción, Operaciones, I&D, etc. En particular por la configuración de LACRALO, es importante referirse a los recursos con los que cuenta: Recursos físicos (infraestructura, equipos, tecnologías, etc.), humanos (número de empleados, capacitación, experiencia, conocimientos, habilidades y capacidades) y organizacionales (Estructura, Planeamiento, Sistemas de Información, Productos, Entregables, y Legales). La teoría indica que son los recursos los que ayudan a la organización a desarrollar las oportunidades y neutralizar las amenazas. (entorno interno).
LACRALO Strengths:
1. ALS in 17 countries in LAC region.
○ Presencia de ALS en el 50% de países de LAC.
2. Level of expertise; middle
3. Parliamentary experience of part of the members
4. MOU con ICANN
○ Acuerdo firmado con el ICANN
5. It was the first region that constituted a RALO
6. Region with more ALSes in ICANN
7. People who want to work
● Miembros con interés y deseo de colaborar en su desarrollo
8. Have Several resources by ICANN (Interpretation, translation, financial support)
9. ALS activas
● Se Cuenta con importante número de ALS activas
10. Elaboración de políticas.
● Tiene influencia en la elaboración de políticas en ICANN
11. Se cuenta con expertos en diversos temas relacionadas al ICANN
12. Se cuenta con herramientas de participación alternativos, llamadas, salas virtuales, webinars, wikis.
13. Se cuenta con vínculos con las comunidades locales de todas la ALS participantes
14. Reconocimiento como nexo entre el ICANN y los usuarios finales de Internet.
15. Conocimientos logrados con el intercambio de los diferentes actores que se relacionan con la comunidad local.
16. The work inside is voluntary
LACRALO Weaknesses:
1. Subregional divisions.
2. Language barrier to participate in ALAC / At-Large WGs which work in English
3. Language barrier makes it difficult for ALSes in LA (predominately Spanish) and Caribbean (predominately English) to understand each other and thus collaborate
4. Politics - groups in LACRALO compete for LACRALO Representatives.
5. Groups can mobilise ALSes to vote in elections but not in ICANN policy development.
6. Different perspectives in how LACRALO should be administered ("sovereign").
7. Individuals can only participate as observers
8. Lack of expertise (in knowledge of ICANN, substantive Internet issues, security, Internet Governance, IP addressing and underlying technology).
9. Lack of parliamentary experience of part of the members.
10. A history of unresolved internal conflict, embodied particularly in the still unresolved General Assembly which was closed but left issues without making progress in them.
● Many internal conflicts
11. Complexity of rules.
12. Lack of deep knowledge of the applicable rulesets (Bylaws and others)
13. Limited linkage of members (as individuals and organizations) to substantive ICANN issues
14. Leadership failures
15. Insufficient/deficient management of conflict of interest and transparency
16. Insistent formation of sub-regional "caucuses" despite protestations to the contrary
17. Older members, more experienced and trained, do not cooperate.
18. The region is known not to work in groups
● Shortly teamwork
19. Lack unity among the members
20. Lack of sense of belonging
21. Lack of commitment
22. Formers members and trained do not cooperate too much
23. Baja participación de ALS en tareas rutinarias no presenciales, contrastando con la alta participación en eventos presenciales.
24. Curva de aprendizaje lento, por demoras por falta de conocimientos elementales
25. Excesivo protagonismo de sus representantes.
26. No contar con un mecanismo de control que permita la identificación y restricciones a ALSs que no tengan un mínimo de participación previamente establecido
27. La integración de ALSs bajo un mismo grupo, lo que a la hora de cualquier votación, no demuestra transparencia. Debería estudiarse la forma de votación de cada grupo, quizás en forma similar a la establecida para ALSs de un mismo país
28. Falta mejor entendimiento de cómo funciona el mecanismo de participación en ICANN,At-large, ALAC, LACRALO. Cuando recurrir a ALAC, cuando hacerlo como región, de forma individual, en los working groups, etc.
29. Falta de clarificación de los procesos de participación en la elaboración de políticas y comentarios, asi como de inclusión de temas de interés de la comunidad.
30. Mejorar y actualizar los documentos legales de LACRALO.
○ Documentos legales de LACRALO desactualizados.
31. Lo que faltaría para ver mejores resultados es buscar un producto concreto, un entregable, luego de cada una de las charlas o webinars, o una por mes, o bimensual.
○ Falta de entregables de gestión periódicos.
32. Bajo presupuesto
33. Débil vínculo entre las discusiones y propuestas de ICANN y la realidad cotidiana de los actores en América Latina y el Caribe.
34. Baja participación de los gobiernos en la región, y comparativamente mayor dependencia de la persona representante del gobierno.
○ Poca o ninguna interrelacion entre ALS y Gobiernos de LAC.
35. Baja participación de las entidades locales, quizás por deficiencias provocadas por nosotros, o falta de procedimientos adecuados.
○ Baja o ninguna participación de otras entidades locales de países de la región.
36. Si bien hay pocas ALSs participantes activas.
○ Poca participación de ALS acreditadas
37. Tradicionalmente, la región del Caribe ha estado subrepresentada y poco se ha restituido para estimular y aumentar la participación.
○ La región del Caribe tradicionalmente ha estado subrepresentada y existe poco estimulo o incentivos para ampliar participación.
Oportunidades y Amenazas: se refieren a las tendencias y acontecimientos económicos, sociales, culturales, demográficos, ambientales, políticos, legales, gubernamentales, tecnológicos y competitivos que podrían beneficiar o perjudicar significativamente a LACRALO en el futuro. Se encuentran más allá del control de una sola organización (entorno externo).
LACRALO Opportunities
1. Expand your representation in all 33 Countries in LAC region
2. End users from a diverse range of countries with respect to history, language, culture, population size could bring unique perspectives into ICANN activities
3. ICANN program towards geographical diversification (e.g. regional strategic plan)
● Promotion of ICANN to work under situations of geographical diversification
4. Fadi Chehade's discourse towards more, and more effective, participation
● The top management of ICANN will promote greater participation of ALS
5. ALAC's increased standing under Olivier Crepin-Leblond's leadership
6. Regional strategic plan for LAC region making progress.
○ ICANN Regional Strategic Plan in the design stage
7. Increasing interest in Internet Governance at government level
8. Possibility of getting more resources
9. Add more ALSes
10. Encourage more current members
11. La opinión de los internautas quienes exigen libertad contra políticas que quieren avanzar sobre el control gubernamental de Internet.
12. La opinión de organizaciones a nivel mundial, que tienen el mismo fundamento anterior.
13. Expresar la posición de la región sobre temas en los que fuimos capacitados.
14. Como ALSs certificadas, trabajar en la relación con organizaciones locales de distinto tipo: universidades, colegios secundarios, asociaciones de profesionales, etc, para cumplir con los objetivos fijados.
15. Detectar tempranamente amenazas, desafíos en el contexto de la relación con el usuario de Internet.
○ Como organización regional detectar amenazas que impliquen a los usuarios de internet.
16. Usuarios finales de una amplia gama de países, que podrían traer perspectivas únicas en las actividades de ICANN, siendo el canal adecuado para una correcta retroalimentación del ecosistema.
○ Oportunidad de crear un balance de representación que promueva la participación de todos en la diversidad que tiene la región LAC.
LACRALO Threats
1. Dissolution of LACRALO or at least severe questioning by third parties
2. ALSes/individuals frustrated by the politics become disenfranchised with LACRALO and stop participating in LACRALO
3. Perception by third parties of LACRALO as an improductive, problematic, and/or benefit-seeking organizations
4. Need of ICANN to make budgets lean and require justification for spending which LACRALO may not be able to provide sufficiently
5. Growth of visibility, influence and impact of NCSG, NPOC, and other groupings which compete for legitimacy, representation, attention space, participation in decision-making, budget, and seats in the governing bodies
6. Questioning of the legitimacy and effectiveness of LACRALO and its members
7. Lack of interest for the region in active ICANN processes (new gTLDs, IDNs, DNSSEC, Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS, SSAC)
8. Resistance against "US-based Internet Governance"
9. Increasing interest in Internet Governance at government and intergovernmental level (this is also an opportunity)
10. Negative opinions inside and outside of the community
11. Wrongful disclosure of information about the region.
12. Opiniones sobre ICANN, pueden no favorecer a las ALS.
13. La falta de participación de las ALSs puede transformar a la estructura de la región en ineficiente y no operativa.
14. Baja participación de los gobiernos en la región, y comparativamente mayor dependencia de la persona representante del gobierno.
○ Una mayor participación del gobierno puede afectar la presencia de las ALS en el diseño de políticas orientadas a usuarios finales.
16. Baja participación de las entidades locales, quizás por deficiencias provocadas por nosotros, o falta de procedimientos adecuados.
○ Mantener procedimientos desactualizados en materia de participación, representación y acreditación.
6. List of group members
Alberto Soto
Dev Anand T
Gilberto Lara
Johnny Laureano
Jose Arce
Raul Bauer
Roosevelt King
Zelrich Lawrence
Alejandro Pisanty
Erik Huesca
