ICANN MEETING NO. 38 | JUNE 2010 ALSes Survey Analysis Preliminary results ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO

... asking for tech./admin. Infos: confirmed that many of EURALO‘s ALSes can provide a secondary contact (73,6 %), only few (21 %) a tertiary one. EURALO Questions 1-3 ALSes Survey June 2010

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q3 - Level of Representation of ALS The vast majority of ALSes are present on the national level of the respective country with two exceptions: one has a regional impact (ISOC Wallonia/Belgium), another one a local (Medienstadt Leipzig/Germany).

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q4 - # of individual & organizational members in ALS Among the 17 responding ALSes, only four have individual and organisational membership, the prevailing majority individuals only.

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q Communications tools and meeting intervals of ALSes The answers showed: that the vast majority use rather conventional methods like Mailing lists (89,5 %), Skype (37 %) and Blogs (52,5 %), only few more recent means (like FB, Twitter RSS feeds). there are almost no capacities for regular meetings (weekly - monthly), some (26 %) meet every months, the majority (58 %) once a year and preferably F2F.

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q7 - Working Languages of your ALS Just confirmed the language diversity in Europe (23 “official” ones at the EU level) and 12 different languages among our ALSes -- for rather pragmatic reasons EURALO’s Working language is English.

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q8a -What Issues are your ALS members interested in? Most of our ALSes are involved in ICANN issues: New gTLDs (63 %) IDNs (31,6 %) Security matters (47,4 %) Whois (52,6 %) IPv4 / IPv6 (42 %) Internet related engagement & Outreach (73,7 %) Any other (like privacy or public interest etc.) (57,9 %)

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q9 - What type of WG activity do you prefer? The preferred WG activity is Ad-Hoc either depending on topic or required commitment ( for simple capacity reasons).

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q11 - Scale of 1 to 5, how well is At- Large integrated in overall ICANN policy structure? … shows rather different perceptions among EURALO ALSes: “integrated” point ,3 % medium point % “not integrated” point ,8 % “isolated” point ,5 %

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q12 - Scale of 1 to 5, how well is your ALS integrated in the overall ALAC/RALO/ALS policy structure? There are basically two blocks saying: „integrated“ point ,8 % „not integrated“ point ,8 % or somewhere in the middle assume 15,8 %

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q13 - What are the most important limitations to ALS participation? Answers are not really surprising … … only 5,2 % believe “there are NO important limitations” ;-) 73,7 % say “other time commitments” 36,8 % feel “ Policy documents are too technical“ 31,6 % consider “not enough Know-how in ALS” 63 % refer to other obstacles like “language problems” or “capacity or funding problems”.

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q14a - Which recommendation(s) does your ALS consider the most important to increasing its own participation in ICANN? The majority see „other“ reasons more important than the 13 recommendations offered. The second group points to several recommendations. IMO some of our ALSes were a bit over-demanded by the complexity of this question.

ALSes Survey June 2010 EURALO Q14b - Which, if any, recommendation(s) would your ALS like to help the ALAC implement? Here again, the majority of the few answering to this question pointed to „other“. IMO, most of the ALSes were over-demanded again to specify how „to help ALAC“ -- it may be more important for them to concentrate on their daily business?

ICANN MEETING NO. 38 | JUNE 2010 Thank you ICANN MEETING No. 38 | June 2010 ALSes Survey June 2010