ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-improvem-impl-sc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire

  • To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft WG Self-Assessment Design, Objectives, and Questionnaire
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:26:54 -0500

hi Ken,

i really like the work you've done.  i've sprinkled reactions inline, but 
overall this is a great start.

thanks,

mikey


On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> SCI Team Members:
>  
> Since our last teleconference, I have been working on the development of a WG 
> Self-Assessment instrument. Rather than inundate the SCI email list with 
> multiple drafts and iterations during the incubation period, I thought it 
> would be more helpful to post my work products to the ICANN Community Wiki. I 
> have now reached a point where I think the material is ready for your review.
>  
> In particular, you will find the following pages under the GNSO tab 
> (category) and Working Group Resources space. Below is the hierarchy 
> including links:
>  
> WG Self-Assessments: https://community.icann.org/x/2Cp-Ag

really good introduction.  on second reading i realized that one thing that 
might need expanding in the "lower-level" chunks of work is the LOs and 
questions that try to tease out the effectiveness of the formally-documented 
processes (the newly-changed PDP, developed by all the WGs that came before 
us).  not a lot more, but just a bit.  i think one of the reactions i had to 
the first questionnaire was that it was too focused on the formal-process 
stuff.  so there's some balancing to be found.  i could certainly live with the 
balance you've struck in this first pass -- but if there was a graceful way to 
add just a little more review of the PDP framework, i'd like that too.  not too 
much though.  we're going for "just right."  :-)

> ·         Design Considerations: https://community.icann.org/x/USt-Ag


individual vs collective -- i like where you're going in the highlighted box -- 
some kind of hybrid between the two, maybe up to the WG.  if they get really 
stuck arriving at consensus, just let the discussion serve as documentation 
rather than trying for consensus.  i agree, it would be a shame to run a 
working group through another tough consensus process at the very end.  
especially tough if they weren't at consensus on their findings and were 
reopening old wounds.

demographic information -- all good -- wisecracks about the NSA 
notwithstanding.  although another approach to consider might be to have the 
information be public.  i don't know -- tradeoffs.  something to puzzle about.

size, complexity, length -- yep, this is where i came into the discussion -- 
the previous questionnaire was really long/hard to fill out.  but it would be 
interesting to see if there's a way to build in "optional" sections if people 
had a lot to say.  my post-mortem on my experience chairing the Fast Flux WG 
took several days to write.  if somebody's got a will to do something like 
that, we should provide a way.

methodology -- no strong opinions either way here.  


> ·         Learning Objectives: https://community.icann.org/x/hit-Ag

first pass -- WOW!  i like these a lot.  there may be more, but this is a 
really good start.  good for: starting off the WG to set norms and 
expectations, periodically referring back to "mid flight" to offer 
course-corrections to the process as its's going, and reflection on 
opportunities for improvement at the end.

since we're a PDP-process focused group, i'm wondering if there's a way to work 
a couple of LOs in about the framework itself.  the goal being to see if there 
WG members noticed flaws in the process that got in their way.  a good source 
of ideas might be the questionnaire i was so cranky about.  i was mostly cranky 
because it was hard to answer, but maybe there's a way to rework some of those 
into LO's that fit in here?


> ·         Questionnaire (Draft v1): https://community.icann.org/x/EC1-Ag

this looks like it flows pretty directly out of the LO's -- so maybe we focus 
on those first?  i really like how the number of LOs is longer than the number 
of questions -- this looks like a questionnaire that could be filled out pretty 
quickly.  and maybe it's just distributed as a fill-in-blanks PDF or 
spreadsheet (to make scraping the answers easier)?  

same reactions on the "policy-process" part being a little light, perhaps.  not 
a bunch more questions, but maybe one or two for those reflective types who 
want a place to note something in the PDP that got in the WG's way?


>  
> If you want to follow my developmental logic path, I suggest starting at the 
> top and proceeding in the sequence shown. If you want to skip to the actual 
> draft questionnaire, it is contained in the bottom linked page. I included a 
> few notes which you should bear in mind before perusing the actual questions.
>  
> At this stage, I would like to receive your feedback before proceeding 
> further to be sure that I am on a productive track. You will certainly notice 
> that this instrument is no longer focused on the WG Guidelines documentation 
> (the original survey scope); instead, on the effectiveness of the WG’s 
> operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. I included my 
> rationale for that shift at the top of the Design Considerations page.
>  
> Feel free to comment on the email list or add comments to the individual Wiki 
> pages. I will attend to both sources over the next week or so as you have 
> time to review and evaluate my recommended approach to the WG Self-Assessment.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken Bour
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy