[ALAC] Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations Report

ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
Sun Jun 14 22:18:17 UTC 2020


Dear Staff,

Thank you for sending this report. The authors have done some fantastic
job. However,  I have critically peered review the report as I usually do
as an academic and the following observation and questions are asked to
strengthen the report as it is a critical report as been suggested by the
report itself in its recommendation that it should be used as the basis for
future metrics.

   1. I noticed that what is meant by General recommendation was briefly
   explained as that that does not fall within the four main scopes, but my
   question is the basis for the general recommendation? Are they based on the
   survey? Or are they based on the opinion on the writers/ this would help in
   the understanding of the general recommendations?
   2. In the explanation of figure 3 "The 50% increase in participation"
   seams not correct because I do not think what was measured is
   participation. What was measured is the attendance at CPWG and other
   meetings, not participation. The data provided is not sufficient enough to
   measure participation. I do not see an increase in participation based on
   my observation (I might be wrong as thee might be a slight increase or
   decreases but definitely not a 50% increase in participation).
   Participation can be measured in a number of ways to include those
   contributing to the various work of CPWG not just by attending by showing
   up on zoom and going to do some other things.
   3. Recommendation on Q 0 says Maintain a 30% ratio of coaches. Why 30%
   why not 40% or 50% ATLAS III has 30% coach ratio by chance and no data
   showed that it was effective, how does it now translate into a magic number?
   4. Recommendation Q1. The challenges faced were already listed as
   financial, challenges with visa challenges as participants can't take time
   off work, among others. I believe these are genuine challenges that need a
   solution, but to my surprise, the recommendation seems to downplay these
   challenges for a reason best known to them (maybe because it mainly
   affected some regions hence it's those regions problem). The recommendation
   went further that the new survey should focus on other things without
   recommending how to solve the problems clearly identified by the survey
   based on the number who could not attend. The recommendation left issues
   identified when future to recommend something else such best channel of
   communication. There is no data in the entire survey that shows that the
   current channel for communication is not effective. There is no much data
   that can support that interpretation language was a problem however these
   were seen to require recommendations. Therefore I can conclude to say there
   is no correlation between the survey and the recommendations.
   5. Q2A in my opinion and as shown by the text presented in the report,
   the low number of individual members is because most RALO are just
   introducing individual members and these individual members have not done a
   lot in the community, and they were not lucky to be selected. This is
   clearly shown based on the fact that the report said there were some
   selection criteria used, and this criteria was mainly based on the previous
   contribution. The only way the recommendation can be true is if the survey
   has compared the number of individual users with the number of individual
   members who submitted an application. There is nowhere in the report that
   this was mentioned. In fact, there is no way the issue of individual
   members can be included as a recommendation in this report because no data
   can definably show that individual members were disadvantaged at this
   point. This can only be shown with more data.
   6. Q2b my interpretation of Q2b is that the outcome was due to the
   selection criteria used. one of the criteria include what you have done the
   past and what leadership position have you held hence naturally those who
   could not show any of this were not selected as participants I do not
   understand the 1st recommendation the syntax does not make sense due to
   typos and recommendation II was talking about outside ICANN skills, and I
   wonder where that was coming from.
   7. Q4. I do not understand the result. e.g. is it that ten(10) people
   from AFRALO scored the preATlAS II event four(4), one (1) person scored it
   1 and zero scored it 3. Are we saying no one scored it below 3? I think the
   axis should be properly labelled for easy understanding. The survey did not
   consider the level of the participant's knowledge of ICANN before the
   survey. Therefore the conclusion that it was the pre-Atlas III capacity
   that did the magic cannot be substantiated. The survey question should be
   Based on the Pre Atlas III capacity building courses not After taking the
   pre-Atlas III course. Or the question should be compared with your
   knowledge before taking the course. I answered the survey at that time, and
   my response was based on my entire knowledge and must just be based on
   knowledge gained from Atlas III because i wouldn't have assumed the
   questioner meant otherwise. I think others too might be in a similar shoe.
   Again the recommendation was solely based on the pre-capacity building used
   before ATLAS III however the survey question was based on both the
   pre-ATLAS III and ATLAS III itself hence the recommendation can't be based
   on the survey. However, I agree with the recommendation on O&E as it seems
   consistent with the survey
   8. Q7a and b can help build a better understanding of Q4; therefore,
   some of the recommendations in Q4 are better off in Q7
   9. Q8 I do not understand the y-axis. For example, NARALO has 3
   participants (coach and non-coach) in all. The question is a yes or no
   answer but the response for NARALO stands at about 6 on the y-axis. Am
   quite confused about this. Then the recommendation seams coming from the
   moon as it cannot be deduced from the response. For example, the
   communications/operations recommendation.
   10. Q8B. I wonder the basis for all the recommendations as it does not
   seems to have any correlation with the response. Maybe they can be
   classified as a general recommendation.
   11. Q10A to implement the recommendation on policy the identity of each
   respondent would have to be revealed, and I do not think it was said it in
   the survey their identities would be revealed surveys are kind off expected
   to be anonymous except otherwise explicitly stated. If the identities are
   not revealed, the recommendation cannot be implemented.
   12. There is no correlation between Q10 B and most of the
   recommendations on this question. They seem to be the opinion of the
   writer(s) not based on the survey. For example, noting about the timing of
   CPWG, final slide recommendation to transform FBSC to OFB-WG on the survey.
   Furthermore, I do not see a direct correlation between figure 21 and 22.
   The correlation can only be drawn by asking CPWG participants if they
   participated in ATLAS III. Then again based on my own observation if more
   ATLAS III participants are attending ATLAS II it might be because a weekly
   reminder is being sent to all ATLAS III participants to attend CPWG;
   therefore, the survey question should have covered things like this as It
   seems like a condition for successful participants in ATLAS III was
   attending CPWG hence the increase in the number of attendance. If figure 22
   which is not part of the survey question is used I see no reason why things
   like who are the new penholders after ATLAS III and things like that be
   used to also allow for the recommendation to be more robust and scientific.


AK



On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM ICANN At-Large Staff <
staff at atlarge.icann.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> On behalf of Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, and Eduardo Diaz, ATLASIII
> Report Group Chair, please find attached the Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis
> and Recommendations report.  This report includes the results and
> recommendations of the post-ATLASIII survey and reports that were completed
> by ATLASIII participants.
>
>
>
> This note serves as a preview of the official launch of the report during
> ICANN68.
>
>
>
> Please inform staff if you see any glaring omissions or errors by Friday,
> 19 June 2020.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
> Website: atlarge.icann.org
> Facebook: facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>
> atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>
> Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge
> <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal 
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal 
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20200614/0a4fb96f/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list