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. Current Privacy issues

5. | 5 Privacy of documents and discussion Current situation: All application forms are public, circulated on mailing lists, posted on the ICANN At-Large website Due Diligence is kept private with EURALO, APRALO, AFRALO, NARALO. LACRALO posts to lists and on wiki. Official recommendations: From Procedure for Handling ALS applications Rev2 Nov2014, email from staff to RALO leadership: “ We would like to remind you that the DD form could contain sensitive information. Please read the form carefully before sending it off to third parties. “ At-Large Framework Formation: “ The information resulting from the due diligence conducted will then be provided to the then-current members of the RALO in the Geographic Region that the applicant organization is based in”

6. | 6 Privacy of documents and discussion Regional Advice: Upon completion of due diligence, all the then-current members of the aforementioned RALO will have an opportunity to review the application and related documentation and may then comment in confidence about the applicant in such a way that the anonymity of the source person or entity of the comments may be kept confidential if the source of the comments so wishes; the substance of the comments will be available to the members of the RALO, the ICANN Staff, and the ALAC members until the conclusion of Step 5 at which point the comments will no longer be accessible ALAC Rules of Procedure Adjunct Document 04 – At-large Structure Framework

7. | 7 RALO application discussion discrepancy AFRALO: Leadership discusses application. Presents applicant and opinion on the Monthly AFRALO call, decides then if Advice is positive. If questions raised, leadership works with staff on them and will re-present at next AFRALO call. APRALO: Leadership discusses application on mailing list and sends advice to staff. EURALO: Leadership informs members of application, sets a deadline for any opposition to be heard. If no opposition received, Advice is considered by default, positive LACRALO: Due Diligence is posted on the wiki discussion page. DD and comments are public NARALO: Posts information about applicant on the list (no DD) and asks for comments from members. Provide a deadline, and reminders. Offers opportunity for members to comment offlist.

8. Potential focus points

9. | 9 Inequality of application information received Inequality of information received and input (Chapters vs small organisations) Regional VPs are uneven in their input If applicant website is in need of “revamping”, only email exchanges with applicant provide information Application form needs to ask the “right” questions, as much for applicant as for RALOs Application form filled in by different “statuses” of members from leadership members to admin employees. Issue of organization awareness of the application

10. | 10 Privacy of documents & Discussion Due Diligence Regional Advice

11. | 11 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. ALAC members during the voting period. Often questions raised at that time are crucial enough to pause the voting. Role of ALAC members to be clarified – responsibility is further than “trusting” the advice of the RALO.

12. | 12 Lack of engagement opportunities Need to dispense bite sized information to applicant Need to get RALOS engaged during the process, trigger respe

13. Questions raised

14. | 14 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?

15. | 15 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

16. | 16 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 organization -Guarantee the organisation knows of application -Compulsory applicant leadership as contact

17. | 17 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

18. | 18 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