[gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Wed Jun 4 00:55:02 UTC 2014

Chuck,

I'll revert back to our member to get the clarification.  I had not looked at the question until you pointed it out, assuming that we will discus these things on our call this week.

As for terminology, we do need to simplify what we have, in my view. Terms used in a survey should not be difficult for a respondent to process, i.e.  easily defined within his/her mind. While I have no proof, it seems to me that easily understood questions may yield more 'reflexive responses', which in theory may give us more honest data.  

I need to get back on my PC to read the survey through inserting 'group' to be able to comment about that. When I think of the institution of ICANN, I think of one body composed of many parts. 
'Groups' may be the simple way forward, or something with more definition such as your 'self-selected group'....  

I look forward to discussing these things on our call.

Thanks for getting me up to speed on this.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com 

-------- Original message --------
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> 
Date: 06/03/2014  20:02  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Ron Andruff <ra at dotsportllc.com>,'Jen Wolfe' <jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>,gnso-review-dt at icann.org 
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions 

Ron,

Regarding the added question, what is meant by the GNSO Structure Charter?  I don’t know what that is.

Regarding the request for clarification in several of the questions for what ‘group’ is referred to or what ‘GNSO/structural component’ refers to, my understanding from the discussion we had a couple meetings ago is that those refer to the groups in the columns to the right.  I think we agreed in that meeting to make that clearer and to avoid the term ‘GNSO/structural component’; one suggestion made was that we use the term ‘group’ but if you have a term that would make it clearer, that would be helpful.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:16 PM
To: 'Jen Wolfe'; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Dear Jennifer and all,

I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, and then I took a longer look at the questions myself.  A number of things caught my attention, as noted below:

#1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws – does this mean links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws?  We will need to, or redesign this question. 

One BC member would like to add: “How has internal decision making been effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter?”  If agreed to by the WP, we will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are not conflated into one.

#1 also states: “If no, please explain” but there is no instruction as to where a respondent would add there explanation and I didn’t see that space on the Survey form.

#2 Also notes: “please provide additional comments” but does not designate where to provide them.

#3 Need to define: “key interested parties”.  Otherwise it is impossible to get consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point.

#5 “If no, provide specifics.” Where?

#7 “How effective are invitations to global community to get involved…”  If we are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear.  If we are discussing ICANN’s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should be clear.  In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this question, so we need to tighten it up.

#8 We are asking two questions here: “… encourage participation…?” and “make it easy?”  Let’s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data points, e.g. ‘yes’ on encouraging participation; ‘no’ to how easy it is/was.

#10 “Does the membership provide…” Confusing.  I believe it is asking me if my membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure.  We need clarify this question better to get consistent data.

#12 “…coordinate with other ICANN structures?”  Need to define what other ICANN structures are.  We (will) define “GNSO” and “structural components”, so what are other ICANN structures precisely?

#13 “Does the group…”  Need to define who “the group” is.  To that end, it would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than introducing new ones throughout that need definition.  That may or may not be possible, but we must – again – ensure that we don’t get a mish mash of data because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents.

#15 “How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives…”  Define whose organizational goals and objectives.  I understand that the various SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ’ICANN’ by the way the question is phrased.

#17 “Does the GNSO/structural component provide the Community with adequate time…”  I’m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN provide…?  The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more often than not, on very short time frames.  At least that is how I see it… ;o)

#21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e).  We need to break these out into 5 separate questions to get the 5 answers.

#23 Finishes with the question: “What are they?” but again does not say where to detail the responses.

#25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question.

#27 “Has the GNSO/structural component measured the impact of its outcomes/work?”  Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO… applied any metrics to determine the impact…  Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along with what has been measured.

I welcome other WP member’s input/comment to my suggestions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA

Ron Andruff
dotSport LLC
www.lifedotsport.com

From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe at wolfedomain.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback.  I agree with your comments and would like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below.  Succession is a critical issue in most organizations and yet it isn’t really touched on in these questions.  I think it may be helpful to ask– how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism? 

I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during the call. 

Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched.

I  know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible. 

Thank you!

Jen 

JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM
CO-MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE SADLER BREEN MORASCH & COLBY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, INTL TRADEMARK LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR 2013

513.746.2801
IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011, 2012 & 2013
Follow Me:   
Follow My Blog
Domain Names Rewired

From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Thanks for the feedback Ron.  Do you think that another question should be added regarding bandwidth?

Chuck

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck.  I concur with you on all that you have noted.  Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? 

This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As we all know – certainly everyone on this list – there is a relatively small core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ‘support group’, if you will, and all of those people only
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20140603/a5f0b633/attachment.html>