Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me try to recall the pioneers’ thinking was or how I’m interpreting it.
  1.. aren't we supposed to be addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that 
came out of the committees that preceded us?
        No. We don’t invent new rules even less important ones.
    
    2. wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges of the 
PDP that could use improvement?

        I think this mandate should be given by the council to a special team 
(maybe the “old” PDP WG)

    3. wouldn't the pioneers who have gone through that process be a good group 
to ask?

        Agreed (see 2.)

    4. wouldn't this questionnaire be a good place to do that?

        Yes but under a council mandate.

I could agree to all of your questions, Mikey, to move things towards 
improvement. But the SCI hasn’t the know-how to develop PDP recommendations �C 
also some members are extremely knoledgeable.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Mike O'Connor 
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:30 PM
To: WUKnoben 
Cc: Ron Andruff ; 'Ken Bour' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx ; 'Hoggarth, 
Robert (ICANN)' 
Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire

hi all, 

i don't have super-strong feelings about this.  but…

i am still trying to figure out what our mission is.  aren't we supposed to be 
addressing fine tuning of of the new PDP that came out of the committees that 
preceded us?  wouldn't it be helpful to gather some insights about rough edges 
of the PDP that could use improvement?  wouldn't the pioneers who have gone 
through that process be a good group to ask?  wouldn't this questionnaire be a 
good place to do that?

confusedly yours,

mikey


On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:50 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


  I would agree with Ron.

  The new PDP is still too fresh as to start developing questions. The 
experience is with the WGs. If they point to questionnable rules then we should 
pick it up and try to find answers.
  I think a more general self-assessment questionnaire should be applicable.

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich



  From: Ron Andruff
  Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:06 PM
  To: 'Ken Bour' ; 'Mike O'Connor' ; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
  Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)'
  Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire

  Dear Ken,
   
  Thank you for the excellent efforts.  In following your various email 
exchanges with Committee members I noted (from below) the following:
   
  3. The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably 
should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method.
   
  On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might 
address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could 
be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could 
be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs.
   
   
  Most of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex.  For my 
part, I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-à-vis establishing an 
assessment questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different 
questionnaires for different purposes.  Better to try to compare apples to 
apples as best we can.
   
  PDP methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are 
looking for now.
   
  My two cents (as a member, rather than Chair).
   
  Thanks,
   
  RA
   
  Ron Andruff
  RNA Partners
  www.rnapartners.com
   
  From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
  Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05
  To: 'Mike O'Connor'; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
  Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN)'
  Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire
   
  Mikey:
   
  Based upon the way I have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS 
dimension is intended to refer to the WG’s internal operations (norms, 
logistics, decision-making, etc.). In that framework, I would consider the PDP 
to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed methodology) and, based upon your earlier 
comments, I attempted to cover it generically in the 1st question of Section 
II. If a WG member found that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was 
detrimental to the team’s ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could 
address it in Section II of the questionnaire.
   
  I would recommend that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for 
evaluating the PDP (per se) for three reasons:
   
  1)      The WG Guidelines and Charter Template (source documents) do not 
specifically integrate the PDP within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is 
specified as part of the ICANN Bylaws.
   
  2)      Not all WGs deal with PDP issues, which would mean that any such 
questions would have to be skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG 
Guidelines mention the PDP, but only as an example of the type of methodology 
that may be imposed upon a WG chartered to address a domain name policy issue.
   
  3)      The PDP is a complex, multi-step process in its own right and 
probably should be evaluated exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other 
method.
   
  On the last point, we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might 
address collectively vs. individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could 
be developed that would delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could 
be administered to all or a random sample of appropriate WGs.
   
  Ken
   
  From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
  Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12 AM
  To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
  Cc: Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour
  Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire
   
  hi Ken,
   
  see?  sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my replies.
   
  this is looking really good.  i've got just a little bit i'd like to see us 
work into the "Processes" section.  is there a way to get a question or two in 
there that gives participants a chance to talk about the PDP process?  we've 
got decision-making methodology (consensus) in there already, maybe this 
question/LO is closely related to that?  looking back at the projects that the 
SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a good example), i think some 
feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be helpful.
   
  for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent reviews of 
those comments) built into the PDP right now.  Marika laid all those end to end 
one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP that's pretty 
long.  it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG participants as to 
whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they were helpful to 
the work of the WG.  i'm seeing a transition in the way that WG's review those 
comments.  at first, the review felt like a burden that we had to get through 
because it was a requirement imposed on us by the PD.  more recently those 
comment-reviews have been a really good source of discussion-points and 
preliminary language that we've woven into initial and final reports. 
   
  if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition dimension (have 
we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a process-effectiveness 
dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those comments in doing their 
analysis?).  both are important.  we don't want to change a good process that's 
being badly carried out, in that case we want to improve the effectiveness of 
the WG participants.  we DO want to review a bad process even though the WG has 
implemented it well if that badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and 
timeliness. 
   
  one reason i picked that particular example is because there's a lot of 
pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now.  what this often turns 
into is a shorthand for "do it faster!"  and, since the comment/review cycles 
are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only place to shorten the 
process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work.  it would be nice to be 
able to get some data from participants that might give an early indication 
that something needs to change there.  that analysis would also be helpful in 
the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and "policy vs 
implementation" conversations that are going on at the moment.
   
  thanks Ken -- really like where this is headed.
   
  mikey
   
   
   
   
  On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
   

  SCI Members:
   
  I have been thinking about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first 
impressions of the Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was 
definitely missing from the original formulation, which led to an “Aha!” moment 
spurring me to create a second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the 
comments expressed thus far.
   
  I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), 
reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. In order 
not to lose track of the first iteration, I made a completely new page and will 
henceforth house all questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire 
Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag).
   
  In this new Draft v2 iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am 
attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was 
only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we 
could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes → 
Outputs. In the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, 
but only a few of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, 
and outside experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge 
upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other 
constraints) and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the 
external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and 
human.
   
  This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds “Background 
Contributor” to the Role list as suggested by Avri.
   
  I thank Mikey and Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to 
additional feedback from the team…
   
  Ken
   
   

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


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