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

[Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.”