RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Larisa, Richard and all,

 

I have taken the Survey and, taking time to consider and answer each
question, it took one hour to complete.  (Note: I filled in answers for the
BC and CSG, i.e., two structural groups.) Upon reflection, I don't find this
to be too long considering the fact we are doing a 5-year review of the
GNSO.

 

My observation, in general, is that this survey will NOT give us all of the
information that one might like to have, but it will give us some baseline
data to initiate improvements in the GNSO structure and operations. And that
is what we are after, in my view, so this survey should serve that purpose.

 

More specifically, my other comments are noted below:

 

Introduction page: explains about the text fields, but needs to note the
maximum number of characters (besides the email address for more space).
[Westlake: Is there not a better way to allow respondents to say more
without having to send an email?  Not sure how you will be able match the
mail to the specific survey, particularly if we get significant feedback.]

 

.#8 GNSO communications. GNSO seeks and incorporates community feedback on
proposals.  Is this what the "GNSO" does?  Or is this what Council does on
behalf of the GNSO?  The question is confusing when one understands that the
GNSO is not the Council, rather the entire body of ICANN (except, of course,
the other SOs and ACs).  Need more clarity in this question.

 

Constituency/Stakeholder group questions: The Constituency has access to
external (to ICANN) advice, e.g. legal or technical

Why is this question included?  Is it something that has been available to
the community and unused, or are we asking if we should be making this
available?  Do we have a need for this, in actuality, or do we have enough
expertise internally?  Confused. need clarity on this question, particularly
as it is asked of every constituency.

 

Clarifications from Working Party members as much as from Westlake are more
than welcome.

 

We are slowly getting there.

 

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 Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 18:50
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Richard G A Westlake
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised

 

Dear All,

The Westlake Governance team modified the 360 Assessment based on feedback
received last week.  The revised 360 Assessment is available here
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSO360ReviewUATv3> .  Please provide your
final feedback and any additional comments from your constituencies  by
August 1, 23:59 UTC.

 

The responder now has the option of skipping the detailed questions
pertaining to the GNSO Council, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.  A
responder who is directly involved or is a close observer in any of these
groups, will be able to answer detailed questions for as many groups as
he/she would like.

 

The introductory language will be further refined to provide a clear roadmap
of the different sections of the Assessment and the options available to the
responder.

 

Please note that staff is in the process of completing a detailed proofing
and editing to ensure proper spelling, capitalization, definition of
acronyms, etc.

 

Thank you for your feedback and commitment to making this assessment useful
and informative.

 

Larisa B. Gurnick

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx> 

310 383-8995