Whatever group or person comes with a recommendation with whatever template which comes out, as part of the recommendation, we should assign one champion to it to follow through. That’s one way to get them engaged and not disappear.
If we’re going to do something like this in ATLAS III, I would have some kind of template. I will ask the recommendation to think about it. Explicitly tell us in which context you’re putting this, who you think this is allocated to, so it’s not… because some of these recommendations when you read them, it’s like somebody said something and you just put it in. You have to be more specific.
- When we do have a recommendation, asking the people who make the recommendation to say, “What do you consider success to be?” would definitely help us in closing the recommendation and saying it’s complete. Because I see several of them being, is it complete? Is it not complete? Shall we go ad infinitum?
- The working group itself, the follow-up working group, does have the chairs of each one of the thematic groups. I think it has the advisors, as well, maybe. I can’t remember exactly what the membership was, but it does have those supposed champions on each one of these recommendations. Now for some reason, just a subset of these has followed up and they’re usual suspects. It is strange, and in fact, some of the chairs that were chairs that hadn’t even followed up at ATLAS either, which is another thing. Perhaps we should keep a database of missing chairs.
- We had subject matter experts, session moderators, assistant session moderators, and a session reporter, and also an assistant session reporter.
- we could really reconvene the thematic groups, invite them all to the call, and then share “these are the recommendations that came out of these thematic groups, and here’s what’s been done so far.” Then you can get to the answers of, “Okay, is this good enough? Is it not good enough?” what we can do is we can certainly at least advise them as to the progress of what is happening between what’s on hold, what’s been in progress, and so forth. I think of this as a sort of like status update and with various slides explaining what is happening to each of the recommendations so far, and then present them to each of the thematic groups.
- it would be an intermediate webinar or a status update on where we are now. having a session for each of the thematic groups separately because that way you’d break it up so it’s more manageable. So in the webinar, in addition to reporting, we should be asking for volunteers or have tasks already assigned and see who wants to take the various actions so that we can move forward to the following steps and thus have more people working. We, in ALAC, are not sufficient people to do all the things in the groups. This is taking too much time. The working group actions are taking too much time, and we need more active people in the recommendations.
- call the chairs again, the chairs of the thematic groups, and check their interest. Maybe they are not interested, or they have other activities and they cannot take it on, so first, call the entire group members. And then before or in parallel, prepare various tasks, and then we can match individuals to tasks. Otherwise, it would make no sense to call them if we’re not going to give them anything to do. Then the questions is good because that will allow us to know what situation they are in and what is the status of recommendations. if we call them back and develop an inventory of new people with what people we have, it could be a good starting point to match people and tasks.
- we need to engage the original groups back into the process, and certainly engage the chairs of those thematic groups.
- as a process, how we align the recommendations that are on the table with the policy groups that exist in ICANN because we’re trying to make movement of policy. are our recommendations too big picture for ICANN, or is there a way that we can put them into more specific language that can be dealt with?
- Another thing we could consider is to manage on a yearly basis. For next year, this list of recommendations are a priority to be completed, to be fulfilled by the end of the year, and do not attempt to cover them all because that is something that we might not do, and we might work improperly with some
Every recommendation should assign one champion to follow through, and this is one way to get ATLAS participants engaged.
Those champions can be the chairs, subject matter experts, moderators, assistant moderators, reporters, and assistant reporters of the thematic groups. If they are no longer interested in following up or have no time, the entire thematic groups need to be called upon to contribute.
- The thematic groups need to be reconvened, provided a status update on the recommendation implementation, and asked for feedback. The status update can take the form of webinar, with one session per each thematic group. Before the webinar, various tasks need to be prepared so they can be matched with individuals. During the webinar, in addition to reporting status, volunteers should get assigned for tasks and actions in order to move process forward and have more active people working.
There should be a template for ATLAS recommendations, which explicit explains the context of the recommendation, to whom it is allocated, and contains other specifics. It should also includes evaluation criteria to define success in implementing those recommendations, which will help close/complete recommendation.
- We should consider managing the recommendation implementation and set priorities to tackle them on a yearly basis; we should not attempt to cover them all at once.