[gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

[Gomes, Chuck]

I paused on that one too Mike.  Then I realized that I was not authorized to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.  I would predict that that will be the case with most respondents unless a group clearly directs otherwise.

Chuck

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 11:41 AM
To: Larisa B. Gurnick
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org; Richard G A Westlake
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Feedback on Q3 from one IPC member:

I found it quite difficult to know how I am supposed to answer question 3, and what the purpose of it is (ie does it matter):
“I am responding on behalf of:
Myself
An organisation or company
A part of the GNSO
Another part of ICANN”

I would probably take the view that I am responding on my own behalf or that of Valideus, rather than as a part of the GNSO, eg IPC, since I don’t have any official capacity to speak for the IPC.  But in which case, who would ever respond that they were taking this survey on behalf of a part of the GNSO?
And what is the purpose of this question anyway:
If it is to capture people’s affiliations then it does not do so if they answer in the same way that I probably would;
Even if they respond that they are answering on behalf of a part of the GNSO, then this does not really capture that they may have affiliations with more than one part, eg IPC or BC and RySG/NTAG

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Larisa B. Gurnick <larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>> wrote:
Chuck and Ron,
Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review - review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for review.

As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment, what do you think about the following:

New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its general purpose.

The question would have all the same answer options as other questions, including a text box for additional feedback.

Thanks,

Larisa

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I am fine with that Ron if it doesn’t cause too much delay.

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear Chuck and all,

Yes, but… …you make a good point that we are not delving into Working Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and perhaps another to flesh out the community’s overall view of them.  Let’s do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward Chuck.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org]> On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
To: Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last three open ended questions.

I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we add more questions at this time.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

Dear All,
The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3>.  Please provide your final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by  August 1, 23:59 UTC.

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as he/she would like.

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the responder.

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of acronyms, etc.

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful and informative.

Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick at icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
310 383-8995<tel:310%20383-8995>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140801/c956a949/attachment.html>