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

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jennifer and all,

 

I sent the draft Survey to the BC list with a request for input again today, 
and then I took a longer look at the questions myself.  A number of things 
caught my attention, as noted below:

 

#1 notes that a link will be provided to the Charter or Bylaws – does this mean 
links to all structural components and GNSO Bylaws?  We will need to, or 
redesign this question.  

 

One BC member would like to add: “How has internal decision making been 
effectively driven by the GNSO Structure Charter?”  If agreed to by the WP, we 
will need to ask this as a separate question to ensure the two questions are 
not conflated into one.

 

#1 also states: “If no, please explain” but there is no instruction as to where 
a respondent would add there explanation and I didn’t see that space on the 
Survey form.

 

#2 Also notes: “please provide additional comments” but does not designate 
where to provide them.

 

#3 Need to define: “key interested parties”.  Otherwise it is impossible to get 
consistent responses to this question to give us a true data point.

 

#5 “If no, provide specifics.” Where?

 

#7 “How effective are invitations to global community to get involved…”  If we 
are discussing structural component outreach, we should make it clear.  If we 
are discussing ICANN’s business outreach department (Chris Mondini), we should 
be clear.  In the end, I am not sure what exactly is being asked with this 
question, so we need to tighten it up.

 

#8 We are asking two questions here: “… encourage participation…?” and “make it 
easy?”  Let’s break this into two separate questions to get two clear data 
points, e.g. ‘yes’ on encouraging participation; ‘no’ to how easy it is/was.

 

#10 “Does the membership provide…” Confusing.  I believe it is asking me if my 
membership in the BC provides the things noted, but I am not sure.  We need 
clarify this question better to get consistent data.

 

#12 “…coordinate with other ICANN structures?”  Need to define what other ICANN 
structures are.  We (will) define “GNSO” and “structural components”, so what 
are other ICANN structures precisely?

 

#13 “Does the group…”  Need to define who “the group” is.  To that end, it 
would be very helpful if we can harmonize terms across the Survey rather than 
introducing new ones throughout that need definition.  That may or may not be 
possible, but we must – again – ensure that we don’t get a mish mash of data 
because our questions were interpreted differently by different respondents.

 

#15 “How well aligned are organizational goals and objectives…”  Define whose 
organizational goals and objectives.  I understand that the various 
SO/AC/Constituencies are noted on the survey, but this could mean ’ICANN’ by 
the way the question is phrased.

 

#17 “Does the GNSO/structural component provide the Community with adequate 
time…”  I’m wondering if this question should be rephrased to: Does ICANN 
provide…?  The issue of adequate time is not a GNSO problem, rather staff 
generating all manner of things that the Community needs to address and, more 
often than not, on very short time frames.  At least that is how I see it… ;o)

 

#21 Asks five nuanced questions (a-e).  We need to break these out into 5 
separate questions to get the 5 answers.

 

#23 Finishes with the question: “What are they?” but again does not say where 
to detail the responses.

 

#25 Similar to #21 above, need to break out each individual question.

 

#27 “Has the GNSO/structural component measured the impact of its 
outcomes/work?”  Suggest rephrasing to: Has the GNSO… applied any metrics to 
determine the impact…  Small change, but it will reveal which metrics along 
with what has been measured.

 

I welcome other WP member’s input/comment to my suggestions.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

 

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

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

 

From: Jen Wolfe [mailto:jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:59
To: Gomes, Chuck; Ron Andruff; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Additional input on 360 Assessment Questions

 

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:  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>   
<http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>   <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>  

 <http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog> Follow My Blog

 
<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>
 Domain Names Rewired

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> 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.”