[ICANN Academy WG] Outcome of the survey

Mon Feb 11 15:51:16 UTC 2013

Dear Sandra,

Great work, thank you.

I didn’t find the result for question 12. Can u please tell me how many want
it prior to the ICANN meeting and how many want it afterward?

I think that the next steps could be:

·       Survey analysis

·       Analysis result distributed on the list

·       At least one call prior to Beijing to discuss the priority actions
according to the survey result

·       Interaction with Sally and staff in general

·       Face to face meeting in Beijing

I hope that in Beijing, we decide concrete actions and that in the near
future, we will be able to have the ICANN Academy starting its work.

My address tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org is not working properly any more. Please
use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn or
tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

De : at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-icann-academy-ad-hoc-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De
la part de sandra hoferichter
Envoyé : samedi 9 février 2013 18:56
À : 'ICANN Academy WG'
Objet : [ICANN Academy WG] Outcome of the survey

Welcome back to the ICANN Academy working group!

First of all I think it is never too late to send you my best wishes for the
new year, for some parts of the world, like China, I am even right in time.

With some delay from my side I send you enclosed the survey report. The aim
of this survey was to get more detailed information about the different
needs of the various stakeholder groups within ICANN, in order to
development of a moulded framework structure for all capacity building
provisions in ICANN. This framework shall then:

1.       mirror all current Capacity Building provisions (modules) within
ICANN

2.       help to identify possible missing modules within ICANN

3.       help to harmonise and synchronise all current and future modules

The report enclosed provides no information about the stakeholder groups
which participated in this exercise. Nevertheless this information is
existing - an overview is provided below. Over all 22. surveys were
submitted. I must admit I was hoping to receive some more surveys, on the
other hand we can expect that some results were jointly submitted by a group
of people. The following Organizations & Committees did not participate in
the survey: ASO, RSSAC, SSAC. 

The following groups participated:

1.

ccNSO

2.

GNSO / RySG

3.

At-Large / NARALO

4.

At-Large/ EURALO

5.

At-Large/ APRALO

6.

At-Large / AFRALO

7.

At-Large / EURALO

8.

At-Large / LACRALO

9.

At-Large / LACRALO

10.

At-Large / LACRALO

11.

NomCom

12.

GAC

13.

At-Large / EURALO

14.

At-Large / APRALO

15.

GNSO / NPOC

16.

GNSO /NPOC

17.

GAC

18.

GNSO / NPOC

19.

GNSO / NPOC

20.

GNSO / NPOC

21.

GNSO / BC

22.

GNSO / NPOC

I will not start to analyse this survey at this point, because I want to
find out first what you are reading from the results. The only thing which
is pretty clear for me, and I would like to share with you here is, that
various needs were identified and I see the WG is on the right track working
on a modular system which provides different types of programmes for
different groups respectively level of engagement. One size will not fit
all.

As for the future course of action I think we can organise a conference call
prior to Beijing and meet there personally. Your suggestions in this regard
are welcome. 

I am looking forward to your comments

Best Sandra 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/icann-academy-wg/attachments/20130211/092eed42/attachment.html>