1. ALS procedure expected outcomes and Proposed changes

2. Current ALS accreditation procedure steps

3. | 3 Current ALS accreditation procedure main steps Staff receives Application Form, forwards to: ALAC members, RALO list, Regional VP and sometimes the Internet Society (if ISOC applicant) for notification purposes Staff works with applicant on Due Diligence with email and sometimes phone exchanges Due Diligence is forwarded to RALO Leadership RALO Leadership forwards Regional Advice to Staff Staff sets up vote, and sends Due Diligence, Application Form, Regional Advice, Internet Society input (if applicable) and additional documents (Bylaws, regulations etc) to ALAC Members. Vote closes, applicant and At-Large community notified of the result

4. Potential focus points

5. | 5 Inequality of application information received Always more feedback and solidity of applicant review when ISOC applicants are involved Regional VPs are uneven in their input If applicant website is in need of “revamping”, only email exchanges with applicant provide information

6. | 6 Community Discussion times Once application is forwarded by staff to the list, RALO members frequently express support, however staff receive little or no questions regarding content of the application, During review for Regional Advice: discrepancy of member involvement depending on RALO Leadership. Some RALOs discuss the application openly during the monthly calls, others open a discussion page on the wiki, others mainly discuss the information amongst leadership and then share decision with the members. ALAC members during the voting period. Often questions raised at that time are crucial enough to pause the voting

7. | 7 Staff perceived issues Community has little “investigation” input during Due Diligence Members have unequal access to application information and decision taking depending on which RALO they belong to ALAC members receive varying levels of information depending on applicant. ALAC members have no real questioning moment available to them before the vote starts, given that they receive the information package on the same day.

8. Questions raised

9. | 9 Questions raised? 1. Can we improve on the quality of information received? Can we find out from RALOs what information they would like to know? 2. Should Due Diligence be a staff/ community collaboration? 3. Should Regional Advice be a more organised process? 4. Should ALAC members be given a question period between receiving the information package and the start of the vote?

10. | 10 Possible outcomes Clearer, more reliable information from the potential ALS Better defined input opportunities from the community with discussion opportunities for ALAC members before voting starts Better use of the application period for Engagement purposes

11. | 11 Practical changes - suggestions Application form: -Updating content -Making it less free flowing, and making responses AND their clarifications compulsory -Giving applicant the opportunity to stop and start the application -Making content more sensitive to different types of applicant, asking about website possibilities, about the safety of their web access. -Making form printable so can be circulated within the applicant’s organisation

12. | 12 Practical changes - suggestions Community input: -Discussion about community input even during the Due Diligence period -Discussion about the discrepancies in how RALOs discussed the Regional Advice -Lack of clear answer to this given the cultural differences between RALOs. (discussion can be sensitive) -A week given to ALAC members prior to the start of the vote

13. | 13 Practical changes - suggestions Opportunity for Engagement: -Addressing primary and second contacts with “bite- sized” information about At-Large and At-Large WGs -Encouraging diffusion of information within the applicant organization during the process -Getting RALO leadership involved in getting to know the application from the application beginning