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

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Feedback on Q3 from one IPC member:

I found it quite difficult to know how I am supposed to answer question 3,
and what the purpose of it is (ie does it matter):

“I am responding on behalf of:

Myself

An organisation or company

A part of the GNSO

Another part of ICANN”



I would probably take the view that I am responding on my own behalf or
that of Valideus, rather than as a part of the GNSO, eg IPC, since I don’t
have any official capacity to speak for the IPC.  But in which case, who
would ever respond that they were taking this survey on behalf of a part of
the GNSO?

And what is the purpose of this question anyway:

If it is to capture people’s affiliations then it does not do so if they
answer in the same way that I probably would;

Even if they respond that they are answering on behalf of a part of the
GNSO, then this does not really capture that they may have affiliations
with more than one part, eg IPC or BC *and* RySG/NTAG

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Larisa B. Gurnick <
larisa.gurnick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Chuck and Ron,
>
> Please note that the work of the working groups will likely be considered
> by Westlake as part of the other data gathering phases of the review -
> review and analysis of documents and one on one interviews.  The GNSO
> Review Working Group along with policy staff can provide guidance to
> Westlake Governance on which Working Groups would be good candidates for
> review.
>
>
>
> As for the inclusion of the Working Group model in the 360 Assessment,
> what do you think about the following:
>
>
>
> New question:  The general purpose of a GNSO Working Group is to
> accomplish a chartered task by enlisting broad participation from
> throughout the Internet community.  The Working Group model implemented as
> the result of the last GNSO Review is effective in accomplishing its
> general purpose.
>
>
>
> The question would have all the same answer options as other questions,
> including a text box for additional feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Larisa
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:09 AM
> *To:* Ron Andruff; Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* 'Richard G A Westlake'
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> I am fine with that Ron if it doesn’t cause too much delay.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:15 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; 'Larisa B. Gurnick'; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* 'Richard G A Westlake'
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> Dear Chuck and all,
>
>
>
> Yes, but… …you make a good point that we are not delving into Working
> Groups at all when, in point of fact, the changes made during the last GNSO
> review moved us to the Working Group model.  For my part, I think it would
> be prudent to have at least one question on the effectiveness of WGs and
> perhaps another to flesh out the community’s overall view of them.  Let’s
> do our best to address this key aspect.  Thanks for bringing it forward
> Chuck.
>
>
>
> 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:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 19:05
> *To:* Larisa B. Gurnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Richard G A Westlake
> *Subject:* [gnso-review-dt] RE: GNSO Review 360 Assessment - Revised
>
>
>
> I just completed the survey in a little over 30 minutes.  I answered
> questions for the GNSO Council and the RySG but I did not respond the last
> three open ended questions.
>
>
>
> I think the assessment is looking very good.  Because working groups are
> such an important part of the GNSO, I think it is unfortunate that there
> are no questions about them.  At the same time I also am not in favor of
> trying to accomplish too much in one survey so I am not advocating that we
> add more questions at this time.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] *On
> Behalf Of *Larisa B. Gurnick
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 6:50 PM
> *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
>
> 310 383-8995
>
>
>