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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In many ways, I actually agree with Mikey and beleive that especially area 2 is 
within the mandate we currently have.  I even beleive the SCI has the ability 
to recommend changes to the PDP process if it encountered problems in any of 
the issues sent to it or found something in the periodic reviews of the various 
mechanisms we have never yet done.

But, be that as it may, I wanted to let you know that the ATRT2 has made a 
decision to put out a RFP  for a Independent Consultant to do a study inot the 
multistakeholder effectiveness of the GNSO PDP.

A draft of the proposal* can be found at:  
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/000482.html

At today's ATRT2 meeting we discussed some few changes to the wording, but I 
beleive we will be putting this out to bid soon.

avri

* No, I did not initiate this proposal.  That was Alan Greenberg, but many of 
the members of the ATRT2 thought this was something that needed to be done.  I 
did not think it was time for this yet, as the new PDP methodology is still 
young.

On 20 Jun 2013, at 11:00, WUKnoben wrote:

> Let me try to recall the pioneers?? thinking was or how I??m interpreting it.
>       ?6?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-??-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.)
>