RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the constructive amendments/suggestions, Chuck.  I concur with you 
on all that you have noted.  Reading your comments on Q26 brought up a question 
in my mind: Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, is 
the applicable body able to develop policy recommendations in a timely manner? 

 

This type of question may provide insight into constituency/SO/AC capacity. As 
we all know – certainly everyone on this list – there is a relatively small 
core of volunteers, backed up by a distant ‘support group’, if you will, and 
all of those people only have so much bandwidth.  Bandwidth speaks to the issue 
of how many hands we have on deck as opposed to volunteer burnout, which we may 
be conflating to mean the same thing.  A data point on this would separate 
those two issues and perhaps give us a better look at how the MSM really works.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

 

Here is one idea for improving the wording in the questions to deal with the 
concern that Ron expressed:  instead of saying “the governing or leadership 
body” or “the GNSO/structural component” say “applicable group”.  In the 
introductory instructions it would also probably be helpful to say something 
like this: “When the questions refer to ‘applicable group’, they are referring 
to one of the following groups: GNSO overall, GNSO Council, GNSO SG or 
Constituency,  or GNSO Working Group.”

 

Question 24 seems unclear to me:  “How well did the GNSO/structural component’s 
key products/outputs meet your expectations?”  First of all, I don’t think that 
‘products’ is a very good term to use because GNSO groups don’t produce 
products in the traditional sense of the term.  Also, using the past tense 
seems to imply a specific occurrence in the past and I think we are looking for 
a continuum of experience.  Here is a suggestion for rewording: “How well have 
the outputs of the applicable group met your expectations?”  A similar change 
could be made in Question 25.

 

I am not sure that Question 26 is going to yield very helpful information: “In 
terms of quantity, has the GNSO/structural component completed a sufficient 
number of decisions and proposed policies?”  It may be that there is more than 
one question being asked here.  Here are some possible questions in place of 
the current one: “Is the applicable group able to make decisions in a timely 
manner?  Is the applicable group able to respond to requests for comments in a 
timely manner?  Is the GNSO Council able to act on WG policy recommendations in 
a timely manner?  Considering the demands of a bottom-up multistakeholder 
model, are working groups able to develop policy recommendations in a timely 
manner?  (Note that some of my suggested questions would not apply to all 
groups so, if they are used, they would need to be presented differently.)

 

I encourage everyone to freely critique my suggestions and/or add to them.

 

Chuck


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender 
immediately and delete this message immediately.”