Dear Eduardo, Before I respond to your last email please can you answer the following questions as it would give me a better clarity before my response . 1. you shared the report so that others can comment on then you incorporate the comments of others before the final version is submitted. is that correct? 2. Please tell me any of the recommendations in the report that is not readily known. ? Thank you AK On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:50 PM Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Abdulkarim:
Thank you for your email.
See my answers below.
-ed
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:16 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
Dear Eduardo, Thank you for your prompt response. You have clarified some of my questions. I still have some concerns. I believe ATLAS III was a success in a number of ways however I don't want us to over or underrate it. I have numbered your comment and my responses are numbered correspondingly. 1. Attendance cannot be same as participation my concern is if we take attendance as participation we would be missing a lot of points and not examine some of the real issues in the community. For example, I know people who would turn up at meetings and not say a word because they fear they would either be intimidated or not listened too for some reasons. If we take attendance as participation those set of people would never listen too and would continue to suffer in silence. And reports like this would be used as a basis which in an actual sense should not have been. Therefore it is better to define it correctly so that it won't be misleading. For me, no one can intimidate me but I know of people in the community who are easily intimidated and would only turn up just to mark the attendance and never say a word. I hope you get what I mean. It would be better to clearly use the word attendance rather than participation.
ed: Within the context of this report, attendance = participation = engagement. There is no more to say than that. I understand and respect your definition.
2. I still do not agree with the 30% magic number because but I can live
with it. My suggestion would be to amend the recommendation along the line that 30% was recommended by the facilitator and it seems to be reasonable and future events should consider the recommendation of the facilitator if not for an event that requires 50% ratio someone can pick up this recommendation and say it should be 30% therefore 30% must be used. If the report can be amended that way that would be fine if not I can live with it.
ed: Thanks for your suggestion but like I said 30% was a number set by the facilitator. The report will not be amended.
3. I totally disagree with you on the issue of the challenges. Visa issue
is a serious problem that requires a serious recommendation. I have never really had visa problems except once that I was refused but later granted and the stress one goes through with visa applications cannot be explained talk less of when it is now rejected. Those who had visa issues for ATLAS III seams now to be left on their own. I believe this should be reflected in the recommendation. If possible a strong recommendation. Two reasons for me feeling this way is that I). The board and others in position to make a change should never fix a meeting like the AGM and ATLAS III in a country like Canada where the visa process is cumbersome with very high rejection ratio it shows like of sensitivity and requires a strong recommendation to avoid such in future II) There is this tradition in our immediate community of not wanting to push for things that are more peculiar to some regions, for example, the African region except when it involves some individuals. I can give numerous example of this. It portrays a situation of non-equallity and lack of opens which is the hallmark of the internet. This should not be so if something like individual membership is being recommended when I do not see a direct correlation, I find it insulting to push things like this to the background. I find it more insulting that when suddenly when it comes to the issues of finance and visa the recommendation now turned into "challenges that we do not know about". Nowhere in the report did the recommendation specified something like this except here. We need to be more sensitive on issues like this. Please tell me what is new that we don't know about in all the recommendations, individual members? 30% coach ratio or what. Am not trying to ridicule the good work you have done but *Please Please and Please every life matters and every challenge matters too.*
ed: Maybe I was not clear as to what we are recommending here. Let me try again. The recommendation is specifically to *"Survey all regions to better understand challenges At-Large members regularly face that prevent them from participating in ICANN events similar to ATLASIII." *The group excluded financial and Visa challenges because those challenges are readily known. The recommendation is for gathering data on other challenges that may be more subtle. What you are suggesting here applies to the group that will be conducting that survey. I encourage you to join such a group when it is created so can bring your views/suggestions onto that group discussions from the start.
4. Yes, I understand the experience we all have in our RALOs but this
report is based on the survey not other experience not directly related. I can live with this but my suggestion is we take non-related experience out. It takes personality out of the report, to me it seems to be there just to push RALOs that don't have individual members to have but am sure other reports can do that.
ed: Noted
5. I agree on with your point on this and I just advise that next time the questions we use in surveys should be more specific.
ed: Noted
6. I don't understand what you mean by no comment on this occasion. Are
you saying the changes would be made?
ed: My apologies. I meant to say - Thank you for your suggestion but it will stay as stated in the report.
7. Am fine with the seventh point
8. That is fine 9. I want us to be more careful about this and in future, a report where the survey used is not anonymous is usually associated with doubt and scientifically they are treated as not too accurate. Anonymous surveys are considered to be more open, honest and accurate. I was thinking that the survey was anonymous. I know some people would be gutted feeling that survey thining it was anonymous and finding out that it was not. for me, it does not matter as I would still be honest when feeling such survey most times but I will be more comfortable it is anonymous.
ed: Noted
AK
Abdulkarim:
Thank you for taking the time to dissect the report.
I have answered your questions in the hopes to clarify any misconceptions. I urge you to be aware that the analysis and recommendations that you read in this report were the product of a collective, global, and volunteer set of minds that for many hours discussed and anatomized the survey. It may not be 100% perfect but in the overall it provides an effective guide for those other volunteers that will be in charge of designing and implementing development plans to continue nurturing the ATLASIII Ambassadors.
Make sure that the group values your and everyone else comments and suggestions.
My answers are embedded in your email.
-ed
---0---
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 6:21 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
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?
1. ed: they are general and based on the opinion of group members.
1. 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.
ed: For the purpose of this report attendance = participation = engagement. The % could have been less (or more) and calculated mathematically. The bottom line is that there was an increase in CPWG meeting attendance after the event.
1. 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?
ed: 30% was recommended by the event facilitator and the number was met. The fact that the meeting went smoothly supports the recommendation made by the facilitator.
1. 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
2. ed: The challenges listed are known as you say. The recommendation
is to see if there are other challenges that we do not know about. Recommending solutions to the ones that we all know were out of scope for this group.
1. 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.
3. ed: What you read is what we interpreted from the data and our
collective experience with the inclusion of individual members in our respective RALOs.
1. 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.
4. ed: The group interpretation was different than yours. The two
recommendations are basically indicating that we should focus in continue developing individuals that are already actively engaged with At-Large. Increased skills are part of that development.
1. 2. 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
5. ed: Ranking levels were from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest number. No one selected a ranking level below 3. Numbers inside the columns indicated the number of people that selected that specific ranking value. Agree that labels will help in better understanding the graph. The group interpreted the data as it was asked with no preconceptions of individual knowledge.
1. Q7a and b can help build a better understanding of Q4; therefore, some of the recommendations in Q4 are better off in Q7
6. ed: No comments
1. 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.
7. ed: The chart included the coaches responses which is incorrect.
Thanks for the catch. Both the comm & ops recommendations are promoting the use of different channels of communication to engage people into their RALOs meetings.
1. 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.
8. ed: All recommendations are geared to promote participation in RALO
meetings. The category classification is just to indicate the development areas that need to focus on this.
1. 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.
9. ed: None of the identities would be disclosed except to those
responsible for developing programs to support / facilitate the development of the ATLASIII Ambassadors. If this is not possible, ALAC will be forced to go back to each ATLASIII Ambassador and ask this question again. The idea is to ensure that the resources allocated to this effort are used effectively.
1. 2. 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.
10. ed: Figure 21: 40% of the participants that answered the survey did not regularly attend CPWG meetings. CPWG participation was constantly reinforced during ATLASIII. Figure 22 is post survey data (May 19 to April 20) and used to emphasize the fact that there was an increase in participation (= attendance=engagement) right after ATLASIII. The correlation is in the attendance variable.
AK
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM ICANN At-Large Staff < staff@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@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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.
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
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/>
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-- 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/>