Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment Questionnaire
ah! i get it. never mind. :-) m On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:00 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let me try to recall the pioneers?? thinking was or how I??m interpreting it. > 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-??-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.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|