[UA-discuss] UASG Five-Year Plan, a lovely idea, but the first draft is conceptually mistaken

[Jim DeLaHunt]

UASG Colleagues:

I am pleased to see UASG planning starting to embrace a longer time 
horizon than our current 1-year plans. The staff announced a process[1] 
to make a Five Year Strategic Plan[2].

However, I think that the first draft of the plan[2] is conceptually 
mistaken. I will try to summarise my thoughts here. Unfortunately, I 
cannot attend the ICANN78 session, "Five-Year Planning for Universal 
Acceptance (UA) and Governance of UA Steering Group (UASG)"[3], because 
it is in the middle of sleep in my time zone.

Part of the conceptual frame of the current draft is in the section "Way 
Forward". It says, "The Universal Acceptance Steering Group is committed 
to achieving Universal Acceptance for all internet users.… UASG aims to 
make significant strides towards Universal Acceptance.… UASG would aim 
to set targets for UA adoption for the next five years…" This positions 
the UASG as the primary actor in achieving Universal Acceptance — not 
website operators like Facebook, not email services like GMail, not 
software vendors like Microsoft, but UASG.

I think it is a big mistake for UASG to think of itself that way. We are 
not the primary actor in achieving Universal Acceptance. We are a small, 
maybe well-informed, but not very noticeable commentator on the 
sidelines. The primary actors are thousands upon thousands of 
organisations and people making economic choices about the websites, 
email services, and technologies which they buy or sell or develop.

If we are not the primary actor for UA, what can we do? We can become 
the best-informed resource for Universal Acceptance information. We can 
become experts on those economic choices which do drive Universal 
Acceptance. We can learn and explain the economic and strategic factors 
driving Universal Acceptance. We can become experts on why actors choose 
Universal Acceptance, and why they do not. We can help willing customers 
find willing sellers of Universally-Accepting products. We can celebrate 
and bring attention to those actors who are driving Universal Acceptance 
success[4].

Another part of the conceptual frame is on the next two pages: "UASG 
will continue to work with its existing stakeholders….", and "For this 
purpose, UASG will work through its existing working groups.…".

I think it is a big mistake for UASG to not have any component of 
self-reflection and structural improvement in the Five-Year Plan. UASG 
should be asking itself, how effective are we? Will more 
technology-focussed working group meetings, more small-scale contracts 
for technology evaluations, and more reports move the needle for UA? We 
should be evaluating which of our activities are having a big impact, 
and which are not. We should be reflecting on how well our current 
structure of Working Groups made up of a small, mostly ad-hoc group of 
volunteers is action performing. We should be thinking of what 
structural changes will make us more effective.

I think UASG needs to reach beyond engineers educating engineers. What 
other areas of activity should UA take on? I think we should start to 
examine how business strategies and economic forces drive or obstruct 
universal acceptance. We should have business people examining economic 
incentives in UASG.

I think UASG does not possess nor communicate a clear understanding of 
the strategic situation for Universal Acceptance. What are the 
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for Universal 
Acceptance in the global market? What are the major obstacles?  Part of 
our five-year work should be to build this understanding, then 
communicate it, then make our annual plans build on this understanding. 
For example, each working group's annual plan should explain how it is 
attempting to overcome the strategic obstacles which we understand to be 
blocking Universal Acceptance.

I remain happy to be helping promote Universal Acceptance. I would like 
to see UASG be even more effective. I think a five year plan can help us 
get here. I think this draft of the five year plan is conceptually 
mistaken. I hope that we can use the five year plan idea to elevate our 
conversation to coming up with a better conceptual structure to build on.

I apologise if this message is rough and poorly written. I wanted to get 
the ideas into circulation, and it is late here, so this is the best I 
can do right now. I welcome the discussion.

Best regards,
     —Jim DeLaHunt

[1] "[UA-Tech] UASG Five Year Strategic Planning FY(2025 - 2029)" 
<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-tech/2023-October/000679.html>
[2] "Developing Five Year Strategic Plan FY (2025 - 2029) For the 
Universal Acceptance Steering Group" 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2obkDSmhH-6mI5BDQT06F0ox42MCRL2h2a-e6wYLSE/edit>
[3] "Five-Year Planning for Universal Acceptance (UA) and Governance of 
UA Steering Group (UASG)" 08:30 UTC, 24 October 2023 
<https://icann78.sched.com/event/1T4OU/five-year-planning-for-universal-acceptance-ua-and-governance-of-ua-steering-group-uasg>
[4] Jothan Frakes has a great idea, to recognise "Champions of UA" 
<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-tech/2023-October/000680.html>

-- 
     --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com     http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
       multilingual websites consultant, Vancouver, Canada