[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update

[Gomes, Chuck]

I concur with Philip's remarks except that I thought there were a couple questions regarding 3.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of BRG
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:46 AM
To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Cc: 'Richard G A Westlake'
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment Update

Here is my feedback to the draft survey on SurveyMonkey.

1. The responses for a Group option remains confusing.  We are trying to conflate different things- SG / Constituencies / Houses and it doesn't work.
2. Working Groups would not seem to fit at all so should not be mentioned in the preamble.
3. I note structural questions have been integrated but I do not see questions the Board wanted about:
Are new stakeholders to ICANN represented in the GNSO today?
How do we best represent new stakeholders in the GNSO in the future?

4. Its annoying to have to respond to all questions even with a don't know.

5. There should be fewer sub-questions to questions such as 16, 28, 30. In general 5 sub-questions should be enough. Pick the most relevant.

Hope this helps

Philip


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140724/b0d0d6af/attachment.html>