<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ron Andruff <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
- From: Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:58:45 +0000
Thanks Ron and Chuck for great feedback. I agree with your comments and would
like to also suggest that we add a question about how well the GNSO does at
inviting and encouraging new participation and engaging new leaders in order to
avoid the volunteer burn out mentioned below. Succession is a critical issue
in most organizations and yet it isn’t really touched on in these questions. I
think it may be helpful to ask– how does the GNSO attract and retain new talent
to provide succession in leadership and volunteerism?
I encourage everyone on this working party to take time in the next day or so
to review the questions and provide any additional feedback on list or during
the call.
Our goal by this Thursday will be to finalize feedback on the language and
scope of the questions so that we can then plan to convene in London to discuss
outreach and the plan to test the survey before it is launched.
I know everyone is very busy and appreciate your time and commitment to ensure
the 360 Assessment of the GNSO is as effective as possible.
Thank you!
Jen
jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
Co-Managing Partner, Wolfe Sadler Breen Morasch & Colby, intellectual property
law, INTL Trademark Law Firm of the Year 2013
513.746.2801
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011, 2012 & 2013
Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
[Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>
[Description: Description: Description: Description:
cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>
Follow My Blog<http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog>
Domain Names
Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
Thanks for the feedback Ron. Do you think that another question should be
added regarding bandwidth?
Chuck
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions
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
www.lifedotsport.com<http://www.lifedotsport.com>
From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 15:42
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.”
![PNG image](pngarckXh4iFX.png)
![PNG image](pngHS6nqnBGxk.png)
![PNG image](pnggN58OY4s51.png)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|