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

[Stephane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jen,

I understand and appreciate where you question is coming from, but I think
it has to be balanced with the need for experience.

I have found that in ICANN circles, the topic of new blood, whilst
politically correct, always gets counterbalanced by the desire to retain
experience. I am talking here of leadership positions of course.

Therefore I think any question about how to get new blood needs to be asked
in the context of retaining experience or getting "old hands" to pass their
experience on.

In that regard, I feel that the current Council Leadership team has done
very well through the training sessions it has initiated. The problem
there, of course, is that it does add to the load the volunteers already
bear by requiring extra days out of them.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
Milathan LTD
"Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice"

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.Milathan.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com


On 3 June 2014 16:58, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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:* *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>
>  *[image: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0]* <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/> 
> *[image:
> 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 <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:48 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; 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] *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."
>