Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Working Group Self-Assessment Test

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I thought I had already conveyed my comfort with the idea of introducing the 
test into the Whois group.  Then again I have been traveling a bunch and was 
having problems sending email at time. 

In any case, I am fine with whatever real WG we decide to further test the 
prototype questionnaire.

avri



On 12 Aug 2013, at 11:59, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Dear Mikey,
>  
> At this point we are waiting on you and Avri to make your decision.  
> Otherwise, if the committee members agree, we could alternatively approach 
> the Locking of a Domain Name Working Group.
>  
> Mikey? Avri?  Please advise.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> 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 Marika Konings
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 05:09
> To: Mike O'Connor; Ken Bour
> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; 'Marika Konings'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test
>  
> Another Working Group that has just completed its tasks is the Locking of a 
> Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Their Final Report was approved by 
> the GNSO Council last week. Although the PDP officially got started under the 
> old rules, the WG phase itself completely ran under the revised PDP rules.
>  
> With best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday 9 August 2013 01:25
> To: "ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> Marika Konings <marikakonings@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test
>  
> i'm game to go ahead w/the Thick Whois WG -- if Avri (fellow member) concurs 
> that we're "done enough."  
>  
> m
>  
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> SCI Members:
>  
> As your guest consultant on this project, I would like to weigh-in on Mikey’s 
> inquiry…
>  
> Given that we have made a lot of progress recently and the concepts, 
> rationale, design, and questionnaire are fresh on our minds, I recommend that 
> we move to the next phase as soon as practicable.
>  
> I agree with Mikey’s observation that there is an advantage to being “done” 
> with the work plan before undertaking the assessment, but I hope that we do 
> not have to postpone forward progress until October-November unless there is 
> no other reasonable course of action available.
>  
> If the “Thick WHOIS” WG is not quite ready, may I suggest that we identify 
> another WG for testing that has recently closed? Perhaps Marika could offer a 
> recommendation. It would take me just a few minutes to customize the letter 
> and the questionnaire for another team.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken Bour
>  
> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:56 AM
> To: Ron Andruff
> Cc: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx; 'Ken Bour'
> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: Working Group Self-Assessment Test
>  
> thanks all,
>  
> this looks great.  here's a choice for you.  i could either forward this 
> *now* or i could wait until the Thick Whois WG is done (we're likely to wrap 
> up well before Argentina).  
>  
> the advantage of "now" is that we get feedback sooner.
>  
> the advantage of "done" is that's when the evaluation fits in the workplan.  
>  
> i'm very much on the fence.  either way would be fine with me.  Avri, you're 
> in that WG.  i'm especially looking to you for preferences/thoughts here.
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Mikey,
>  
> As a member of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), 
> you have been intimately involved in helping develop a new instrument that we 
> are calling “Working Group Self-Assessment.” Delving back into the history of 
> the GNSO Improvements initiative (2008-2012), it had always been envisioned 
> that there would be team member evaluations of Working Group processes; 
> however, no prescription for such an instrument had been undertaken until 
> now. The purpose of these assessments is to provide Chartering Organizations, 
> such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working 
> Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs -> Processes -> 
> Outputs and ultimately leading to continuing process improvements.
>  
> As the Chair of the “Thick WHOIS” Working Group, we appreciate your 
> willingness to ask your team members if they would help us test the latest 
> version of the questionnaire that has been customized at this link: 
> http://thickwhois.questionpro.com. All of the background information and 
> instructions are contained within the instrument, so there is little more 
> that you need to do other than provide an invitation and, say, a 2-3 week 
> timeframe to complete it.  
>  
> Our consultant, Ken Bour, will monitor the completion process, provide status 
> updates to the SCI, and be available to provide technical assistance if 
> needed by any of your team members.
>  
> It would be most helpful if your members would complete the questionnaire as 
> though it were a real self-assessment for the “Thick WHOIS” Working Group, 
> despite it being a test at this time. That approach will ensure that the 
> instrument is thoroughly and exhaustively tested.
>  
> How to Provide Further Feedback to the SCI
> The questionnaire is designed, of course, to ask about Working Group members’ 
> experiences – not the Working Group itself. To provide your team members with 
> a place where they can provide feedback about the instrument, we created a 
> separate page in the “Thick WHOIS” ICANN Wiki space (Link: 
> https://community.icann.org/x/pVZ-Ag) where that type of information can be 
> aggregated. We are also set up to accept emails if any of your members would 
> prefer that method. Please ask them to submit any feedback to our Consultant 
> on this project: Ken Bour at ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>  
> In particular, we are interested in learning:
> ·         Are the questions intelligible and is the wording clear as to 
> intent?
> ·         Are the design and format straightforward?
> ·         Does the scaling (1-7) make sense?
> ·         Are the instructions clear?
> ·         Is the online presentation (QuestionPro) easy to complete?
> ·         Can the entire questionnaire be completed within 30 minutes?
> ·         Are there any important elements of the Working Group’s operations 
> that have been neglected?
>  
> Thank you in advance for your WG’s involvement in testing this assessment 
> instrument.
>  
> Ron Andruff, Chair, SCI
>  
>  
> Ron Andruff
> RNA Partners
> www.rnapartners.com
>  
>  
> 
> 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.)