[gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - additional comments from a BC member

[Stephane Van Gelder <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team,

As previously mentioned, Ron and I sought the BC's opinion on the survey
draft. Please find below some very comprehensive comments sent in by one BC
member.

Best,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments about the survey.

First, just as a disclaimer--without context for some of the data points
sought, my ability to judge content is limited.

My comments are these:

* The current industry standard format for 5-option, scaled surveys does
not include both "no opinion" and "not applicable".
Rather, options generally fall across a spectrum, in order (, or its
inverse), like this:
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
...with Does not apply on the far right or far left

* I do not understand why an asterisk alongside each numbered question.
This is distracting to me, and appears to me to be unnecessary.

* My comment regarding Questions #7-end is that there is little difference
between "no opinion" and "not applicable," and it is unclear to me what
benefit discernment of these two things provides among the data to be
collected.  Also, the lack of a "neither agree nor disagree" in the middle
interrupts the spectrum of choices and causes unnecessarily distraction.
 "Not applicable" does not appear to be useful at all, especially after the
'answerer' has already indicated an interest in that stakeholder group or
constituency.  On the other hand, if the question itself does not
apply...it may have a better place to exist than this survey.


RE: Question #9
- Consider including "governments" in the list.
- This one measures "not enough" but misses an easy opportunity to measure
"too much".

RE: Question #12. Are you involved with the GNSO Council?
This appears vague to me.  As a survey respondent, I have much room for
subjectivity.  Perhaps it is desirable and possible to as a more specific
question?

RE: Questions #12 and #13
An incosistency that caused me to indicate an answer opposite the one
intended.  On Question #12, the "yes" is on top.  On Question #13, the
"yes" is on the bottom.  I may not be the only one to look at placement and
not the words.

RE: Question #15
The font above text box does not match the font above the other text boxes

RE: All sections that appear following the "are you an observer or member
of..." questions
There appears to be no delineation between observer and member.  I can see
the answers to these questions varying based upon which group--observer vs.
member--one belongs.  Perhaps it would be useful to have this delineation
as well? As it stands, it appears that answers from observers carry the
same weight as answers from members--which may be intentional.


I may have different thoughts with a better understanding of the tactical
objectives of this survey.  The data points selected to be used may be very
well thought-out. My comment about that is only that we be assured that the
layout of the survey, and the questions in it, allow us to receive the
greatest benefit possible as a result.


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 29 July 2014 22:51, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  I completely agree and think it's important we clearly help the survey
> taker to understand that they can elect for their comments and responses to
> be anonymous.
>
>
>
> I don't think we want to mislead the survey taker into thinking that their
> comments won't be made available to the community or considered by the
> Review Party if they elect for confidentiality.  My understanding is that
> we would still have data points on those responses and the qualitative
> comments, we just would attribute to a specific person but rather
> categorically to how the survey taker responded to questions about ICANN
> experience.
>
>
>
> Larisa or Richard, could you please confirm that's how the data will be
> aggregated and presented to the Working Party and the community?
>
>
>
> Thank you to everyone for continued debate and participation in this
> discussion.
>
>
>
> *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*
>
> Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
>
> managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual
> property law firm, *named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013*
>
> *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011,  2012 & 2013*
>
> *513.746.2801*
>
> *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:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:44 PM
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Some people are much more candid if they can be anonymous.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:17 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> That is another approach, but we still favor a default public response,
> since we should want as many candid, informed, public responses as
> possible.  Curious to hear Westlake and others' views on this.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here's another approach for consideration (suggested by Rubens Kuhl from
> the RySG):  "I don't think that defaulting either to confidential or not
> confidential should be done. This first question can be mandatory so the
> respondent picks whether it's confidential or not, instead of us, IPC,
> ICANN or Westlake."
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:48 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Still has the wrong default, in IPC's opinion, and per general ICANN
> notions of transparency.  How about this?
>
>
>
> "*Your **identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the
> independent reviewer, if you so elect by checking the box below.  Otherwise
> your identified response will be shared for further analysis with the GNSO
> Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff.*"
>
>
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Would the following rewording work:
>
>
>
> "*Identity of responders **will not be made available publicly. Your *
> *identity** will remain confidential to Westlake as the independent
> reviewer, unless you are willing for your **identity** to be shared for
> further analysis with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN
> staff, please indicate in the consent box below*"
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:46 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Good then we at least agree as to the body of the responses.  But the
> current draft instructions seem clear that the entire response will remain
> confidential only to Westlake, not even to Staff:
>
>
>
> *Individual responses will not be made available publicly. Your input will
> remain confidential to Westlake as the independent reviewer, unless you are
> willing for your individual feedback to be shared for further analysis with
> the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff, please indicate
> in the consent box below*
>
> ( ) I consent to the independent reviewer sharing my individual feedback
> with the GNSO Review Working Party and supporting ICANN staff for the
> express purpose of assisting with the 2014 GNSO Review.
>
>
>
> We still may disagree as to whether names should be attached to the
> response by default.  We in the IPC think giving an 'opt out' to public
> disclosure is sufficient protection for the relatively few people who would
> want to keep their name out of the purview of the Working Party and/or
> public.  When evaluating the responses, it is important to know who is
> speaking.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> If I am understanding you correctly, I wonder whether we are talking past
> each other.  In advocating for confidentiality, I am not saying that
> responses should be confidential but rather that the identity of the
> responder should be kept confidential by default.  I think that the
> responses should be publicly available.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:12 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Thanks Chuck.  In a nutshell, we think the survey responses will be very
> important, and should not generally be kept secret.  In order for the
> Working Party to do its job, and for the public to properly weigh in on the
> recommendations of Westlake and/or the Working Party, the underlying data
> generally needs to be made available.  ICANN is an open and transparent
> organization, data and opinions are typically shared publicly for the
> benefit, input and buy-in of the entire community.  Those respondents who
> wish to maintain confidentiality of their response can elect to do so, and
> so that should address any confidentiality concern.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> There has been  pretty good discussion on the RySG list about this.
> Several people have asked for the IPC rationale.  I communicated that the
> main reason I heard was transparency.  If you can add to that, I will share
> it with the RySG.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:27 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for a change
> to the prior draft's default.  After our London interaction, I figured the
> issue might be discussed by the entire Working Party but I don't think that
> has happened; so clearly now is the time to have that discussion.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> Unless I missed it, I didn't hear anyone but you advocating for the
> default being 'public response' but I forwarded the IPC position to the
> RySG list to see if any of our participants feel the same.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 7:38 PM
> *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick
> *Cc:* gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-review-dt] GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Thanks Larisa.  IPC notes that the confidentiality default has been
> changed from the previous draft, so that now responses by default will only
> be viewed by Westlake.  I did not note consensus in the Working Party for
> such a change.  IPC's position is that the default should be public
> response, with the clear option for any respondent to choose their
> particular response to remain confidential.  We see no justification for
> 'default confidential' response, given the importance of this review and of
> ICANN's goal to be a transparent organization.  The Working Party and the
> public should have access to the vast majority of the responses so we can
> adequately comment on Westlake's analysis of them.
>
>
>
> Curious to hear others' thoughts on this issue, and Staff/Westlake
> justification for making this change.
>
>
>   Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick <
> larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 310 383-8995
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>