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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

ah.

in that case, maybe Thick Whois is best.  there's a fair amount of the 
evaluation that reflects on the Chair and i'd prefer to avoid inflicting that 
embarrassment on somebody else during this trial run.

i'll go ahead and send the note to the WG once i'm finished with the current In 
Transit mode.

thanks Avri,

mikey


On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.)
> 
> 


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