Second ALAC Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

The '''Second ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large2) was initiated in January 2016. Implementation of improvements concluded in December 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/alac ICANN.org - At-Large Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>

The '''Second ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large2) was initiated in January 2016. Implementation of improvements concluded in June 2020, with a supplemental status update provided in December 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/alac ICANN.org - At-Large Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>

==Background==

Line 33:

# At-Large members should evangelize about ALAC participation within other regional meetings and conferences around Internet governance.

# At-Large should "be more judicious in selecting the amount of advice it seeks to offer..."

# At-Large should adopt a proposed "Empowered Membership Model" contained within the report.

# At-Large should adopt a proposed "Empowered Membership Model" (EMM) contained within the report.

# At-Large support staff should be more engaged in supporting members in policy work within ALAC.

# At-Large should "redouble efforts" to engage with ICANN leadership, [[ISOC]], and other governance organizations for joint strategic planning and cross-community outreach.

Line 48:

# At-Large should adopt consistent metrics to measure the implementation and impact of the Engaged Membership Model and foster a culture of continuous improvement of ALAC operations.<ref name="draftrep" />

===Public Comment===

There were fifteen comments in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />

#

==Final Report==

ITEMS incorporated the public comment feedback, as well as continued input through webinars, ICANN meeting sessions, and one-on-one interviews, to refine and consolidate their recommendations in their final report. The final report was submitted to the board in May 2017, and retained the EMM, random selection of the ALAC seat on the board, and a modified recommendation to dramatically reduce the number of internal working groups (to "3 or 4").<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-final-02may17-en.pdf At-Large2 - Final Report of independent Examiner], May 2, 2017</ref> There was no public comment period on the final report; however, several organizations reiterated their concerns to the board regarding the feasibility and impact of the report's recommendations on the operation of At-Large and the ALAC's mission of supporting the broadest possible constituency.<ref name="boardres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en#1.h Resolution of the Board], June 23, 2018</ref>

==Dissent and Reconciliation==

In its Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan, submitted to the board in September 2017, the At-Large2 review working party rejected the recommendations pertaining to election of the ALAC board member, implementation of the EMM, and the abandonment of working groups. It noted in response the election recommendation that ITEMS appeared to be willing to base its conclusions on unsubstantiated opinions: "The ALAC notes that this Recommendation and its associated report section exemplifies the overall concerns over this At-Large Review. The identified issue includes the phrase “allegations of unfairness”, but there was no substantiation or even mention of this in the report."<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69280572&preview=/69280572/71598316/At-Large%20Review%20Feasibility_Final-Revised_20170919.pdf AtLarge2 - Final Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan], September 19, 2017</ref> In response, the board's [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] produced a "mapping document" highlighting the divergences of opinion between the final report and the feasibility assessment, as well as a summary of public comments on each issue as addressed in the draft report. It presented a series of questions to the At-Large2 RWP regarding each of the recommendations. Some were addressed at clarifying the differences of opinion, while others requests specific responses to how the ALAC intended to address the issues underlying the rejected recommendations.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417955&preview=/51417955/84215197/At%20Large%20Review_final%20mapping.pdf OEC Questions to the At-Large2 RWP], December 20, 2017</ref> The RWP responded in turn with an Implementation Overview in April 2018.<ref name="dashboard" /> The overview responded to the mapping document and the OEC's questions by proposing implementation of improvements that addressed the gaps identified by the OEC.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/ALRW/At-Large+Review+Implementation+Overview+Proposal?preview=/84214343/84216717/ALAC-Proposal_Approved-20180420.pdf At-Large2 Implementation Overview], April 20, 2018</ref>

The RWP, OEC and ICANN Board received additional feedback after the presentation of the implementation overview, and ALAC responded to that correspondence with additional information and refined proposals for addressing issues identified in the mapping document. On June 23, 2018, the board acknowledged receipt of the ITEMS final report, and approved the Implementation Overview as the model for moving forward with improvements to ALAC processes. The board described the outcome of its deliberations in the background summary of the resolution:

<blockquote>Having considered the ALAC position, including its response to community concerns, the Board believes that the ALAC has demonstrated accountability and transparency in this organizational review process. Furthermore, the Board believes that the At-Large Implementation Overview Proposal provides an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the review, and is hopeful that the proposal will lead to a much-improved At-Large and further improve end user participation within ICANN's multistakeholder model. While the recommendation path that is being pursued veers significantly from the recommendations of the independent examiner, the Board considers, based on all that it has seen, that the implementation recommendations are appropriate to address the well-stated issues from the independent examiner's report. Implementing the ALAC-proposed improvements is a significant step in assuring that the post-review At-Large is able and capable to fulfil its Bylaws-mandated role and responsibilities.<ref name="boardres" /></blockquote>

==Implementation==

The ALAC was instructed to create a detailed implementation plan based on its implementation overview, and to provide biannual implementation reports to the OEC.<ref name="boardres" /> The ALAC submitted its final implementation report in June 2020,<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102145404/At-Large%20Review%20Implementation%20Final%20Report%20June%202020%5B3%5D.pdf At-Large2 - Implementation Final Report], Jund 20, 2020</ref> with a follow-up status report provided in December 2020<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102145404/At-Large%20Review%20Implementation%20Status%20Update%20-%20December%202020.pdf At-Large2 Implementation Status Update], December 20, 2020</ref> providing the board with an update on specific outstanding items from the implementation plan.<ref name="dashboard" /> The At-Large dashboard has marked all phases of the review as complete.<ref name="dashboard" />

==References==

[[Category: Organizational Reviews]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Second ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large2) was initiated in January 2016. Implementation of improvements concluded in December 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/alac ICANN.org - At-Large Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>
+The '''Second ALAC Organizational Review''' (At-Large2) was initiated in January 2016. Implementation of improvements concluded in June 2020, with a supplemental status update provided in December 2020.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/alac ICANN.org - At-Large Organizational Review Dashboard]</ref>
 ==Background==
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 # At-Large members should evangelize about ALAC participation within other regional meetings and conferences around Internet governance.
 # At-Large should "be more judicious in selecting the amount of advice it seeks to offer..."
-# At-Large should adopt a proposed "Empowered Membership Model" contained within the report.
+# At-Large should adopt a proposed "Empowered Membership Model" (EMM) contained within the report.
 # At-Large support staff should be more engaged in supporting members in policy work within ALAC.
 # At-Large should "redouble efforts" to engage with ICANN leadership, [[ISOC]], and other governance organizations for joint strategic planning and cross-community outreach.
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 # At-Large should adopt consistent metrics to measure the implementation and impact of the Engaged Membership Model and foster a culture of continuous improvement of ALAC operations.<ref name="draftrep" />
+===Public Comment===
+There were fifteen comments in response to the draft report. The reaction to the more provocative recommendations (random selection of the ALAC board seat and abandonment of working groups) was largely negative, while there was broad support among the commenters regarding strengthening and diversifying outreach activities.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atlarge-review-draft-report-10apr17-en.pdf Staff Report on public comment proceeding], April 10, 2017</ref> The ALAC in particular strongly objected to several recommendations, as well as the implementation of the Empowered Membership Model, which it found to be contrary to the reality of work within ICANN and the RALOs.<ref name="draftpc" />
-#
+==Final Report==
+ITEMS incorporated the public comment feedback, as well as continued input through webinars, ICANN meeting sessions, and one-on-one interviews, to refine and consolidate their recommendations in their final report. The final report was submitted to the board in May 2017, and retained the EMM, random selection of the ALAC seat on the board, and a modified recommendation to dramatically reduce the number of internal working groups (to "3 or 4").<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-final-02may17-en.pdf At-Large2 - Final Report of independent Examiner], May 2, 2017</ref> There was no public comment period on the final report; however, several organizations reiterated their concerns to the board regarding the feasibility and impact of the report's recommendations on the operation of At-Large and the ALAC's mission of supporting the broadest possible constituency.<ref name="boardres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en#1.h Resolution of the Board], June 23, 2018</ref>
+==Dissent and Reconciliation==
+In its Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan, submitted to the board in September 2017, the At-Large2 review working party rejected the recommendations pertaining to election of the ALAC board member, implementation of the EMM, and the abandonment of working groups. It noted in response the election recommendation that ITEMS appeared to be willing to base its conclusions on unsubstantiated opinions: "The ALAC notes that this Recommendation and its associated report section exemplifies the overall concerns over this At-Large Review. The identified issue includes the phrase “allegations of unfairness”, but there was no substantiation or even mention of this in the report."<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69280572&preview=/69280572/71598316/At-Large%20Review%20Feasibility_Final-Revised_20170919.pdf AtLarge2 - Final Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan], September 19, 2017</ref> In response, the board's [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] produced a "mapping document" highlighting the divergences of opinion between the final report and the feasibility assessment, as well as a summary of public comments on each issue as addressed in the draft report. It presented a series of questions to the At-Large2 RWP regarding each of the recommendations. Some were addressed at clarifying the differences of opinion, while others requests specific responses to how the ALAC intended to address the issues underlying the rejected recommendations.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51417955&preview=/51417955/84215197/At%20Large%20Review_final%20mapping.pdf OEC Questions to the At-Large2 RWP], December 20, 2017</ref> The RWP responded in turn with an Implementation Overview in April 2018.<ref name="dashboard" /> The overview responded to the mapping document and the OEC's questions by proposing implementation of improvements that addressed the gaps identified by the OEC.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/ALRW/At-Large+Review+Implementation+Overview+Proposal?preview=/84214343/84216717/ALAC-Proposal_Approved-20180420.pdf At-Large2 Implementation Overview], April 20, 2018</ref>
+The RWP, OEC and ICANN Board received additional feedback after the presentation of the implementation overview, and ALAC responded to that correspondence with additional information and refined proposals for addressing issues identified in the mapping document. On June 23, 2018, the board acknowledged receipt of the ITEMS final report, and approved the Implementation Overview as the model for moving forward with improvements to ALAC processes. The board described the outcome of its deliberations in the background summary of the resolution:
+<blockquote>Having considered the ALAC position, including its response to community concerns, the Board believes that the ALAC has demonstrated accountability and transparency in this organizational review process. Furthermore, the Board believes that the At-Large Implementation Overview Proposal provides an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the review, and is hopeful that the proposal will lead to a much-improved At-Large and further improve end user participation within ICANN's multistakeholder model. While the recommendation path that is being pursued veers significantly from the recommendations of the independent examiner, the Board considers, based on all that it has seen, that the implementation recommendations are appropriate to address the well-stated issues from the independent examiner's report. Implementing the ALAC-proposed improvements is a significant step in assuring that the post-review At-Large is able and capable to fulfil its Bylaws-mandated role and responsibilities.<ref name="boardres" /></blockquote>
+==Implementation==
+The ALAC was instructed to create a detailed implementation plan based on its implementation overview, and to provide biannual implementation reports to the OEC.<ref name="boardres" /> The ALAC submitted its final implementation report in June 2020,<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102145404/At-Large%20Review%20Implementation%20Final%20Report%20June%202020%5B3%5D.pdf At-Large2 - Implementation Final Report], Jund 20, 2020</ref> with a follow-up status report provided in December 2020<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102145404/At-Large%20Review%20Implementation%20Status%20Update%20-%20December%202020.pdf At-Large2 Implementation Status Update], December 20, 2020</ref> providing the board with an update on specific outstanding items from the implementation plan.<ref name="dashboard" /> The At-Large dashboard has marked all phases of the review as complete.<ref name="dashboard" />
+==References==
+{{reflist}}
+[[Category: Organizational Reviews]]