<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(14,16,26)">Dear Staff, </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:rgb(14,16,26)">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. </span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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?</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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?</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.
</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Q7a and b can help build a
better understanding of Q4; therefore, some of the recommendations in Q4
are better off in Q7 </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(14,16,26);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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. </span></li>
</ol><div><font color="#0e101a" face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#0e101a" face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">AK</span></font></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM ICANN At-Large Staff <<a href="mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">staff@atlarge.icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="en-BE">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All, <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This note serves as a preview of the official launch of the report during ICANN68.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please inform staff if you see any glaring omissions or errors by Friday, 19 June 2020.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community<br>
Website: <a href="https://atlarge.icann.org/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">atlarge.icann.org</span></a> <br>
Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">facebook.com/icann</span></a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">atlarge</span></a><br>
Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">@</span></a><a href="https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">ICANNAtLarge</span></a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Website</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">,</span><span style="font-size:1.3em"> </span><span style="font-size:1.3em"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">PGPortal</a></span></div><div><br></div>