Versions Compared

Version Old Version 2 New Version 3
Changes made by

Ken Bour

Ken Bour

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Infonote

Note to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:
Initially, the questionnaire material is presented in plain text for the purposes of editing/finalizing the content. Once the final design, structure, sequencing, and language have been approved, the intention is to enter the questions into an online tool (e.g., QuestionPro, SurveyMonkey, Wiki) to facilitate data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Welcome and Introduction

Thank you for accepting the invitation to complete this self-assessment of questionnaire concerning your experiences with the __________________________ Working Group (WG). Your Chartering Organization (CO) and other ICANN stakeholders are keenly interested in learning about the effectiveness of its chartered teams by asking participants for their assessments, perspectives, and insights concerning various aspects of the Working Group's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. The results of your feedback will be used to identify improvement areas in the guidelines, tools, methods, templates, and procedures applicable to Working Groups. Summary reports will be shared not only with your Working Group, but the larger GNSO stakeholder community. 

...

This questionnaire is organized into five sections and should take approximately _____ minutes to complete. Although most of the questions will ask you for an effectiveness rating (1-7 5 Scale), there will be an opportunity within each major section to add free-form text comments. You are encouraged to provide supplementary explanations or other supporting information that will help the Chartering Organization understand and interpret your input. If there is any individual question for which you do not wish to provide a rating, a SKIP option is available. 

...

Name: 
Email: 
Organization:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Registry Stakeholder Group
    • Registrar Statkeholder Group
    • Business Constituency
    • Intellectual Property Constituency
    • Internet Services Provider Constituency
    • Non-Commercial Users Constituency
    • Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
    • At-Large/ALAC
    • Other ICANN SO/AC
    • Representing Self
    • Other (please describe): _____________________
Working Group Role:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Leader (Chair, Co-Chair, Vice-Chair, Other Officer)
    • Contributing Member
    • Liaison
    • Observer
    • Advisor/Consultant
    • Support (e.g., secretary, technical, administrative)
    • Other (please describe)

...

    • : _____________________
Info

In the next three sections (II, III, and IV), you will be asked to rate

...

the EFFECTIVENESS

...

 of each dimension; the scale interpretation will be provided appropriate to each element:

II. Norms and Operations

Thinking about the EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Goup's Norms and Operations, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and

...

5=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

The overall Participation and Collaboration environment where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: closed, inhospitable, unaccepting, dominated/controlled by one or few participants, frustrating, unproductive; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: open, inviting, accepting, most/many participating equally, productive

1234567SKIP

The overall Representativeness of the Working Group where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: narrow, skewed, selective, unbalanced; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: broad, diverse, balanced

1234567SKIP

The overall Decision-Making & Consensus Methodology where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: broken, ignored, not observed; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: honored, followed, observed

1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)
III. Logistics and Requirements
Thinking about the EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Goup's Logistics and Requirements, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and

...

5=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

The overall Session/Meeting Planning (Agenda) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: disorganized, haphazard, unstructured, untimely notice; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: organized, disciplined, structured, timely notice

1234567SKIP

The Communication/Collaboration Tools provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following:  difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, tedious, slow, not helpful/useful; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Briefings and Subject Matter Experts provided to the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: inappropriate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following:  appropriate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

...

Thinking about the EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Goup's Products and Outputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7 5=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Achievement of the Working Group's Mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means not accomplished per the Charter; and
75-Highly Effective means accomplished as directed

1234567SKIP
  
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)

...

Assessment CategoryRating

I assess my own Participation in helping the WG achieve its mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: immaterial, negligible, insignificant
75-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: material, substantial, significant

1234567SKIP

In terms of my own personal Fulfillment, I value the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG as:
1-Highly Unrewarding; and
75-Highly Rewarding

1234567SKIP
How did you learn about the WG?

 

Please select one from the drop-down list:

  • I was informed or invited by my SG/C or ICANN-affiliated organization
  • I was contacted by an ICANN Staff member
  • I was contacted by an individual seeking to recruit volunteers for the WG (e.g., GNSO Councilor, interim Chair)
  • I learned about the WG through one of ICANN's websites (or Wikis)
  • I learned about the WG from another organization not directly associated with ICANN
  • A professional colleague or associate informed me about the WG
  • Other (please describe): _________________________________
Approximately how long have you been involved with ICANN:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 1 year
    • 1 - 2 years
    • 2 - 4 years
    • 4 - 6 years
    • 6 - 8 years
    • More than 8 years
Considering the most recent twelve months, on average, approximately how many hours per week do you spend on ICANN-related activities:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 10 hours
    • 10 - 20 hours
    • 20 - 40 hours
    • 40 - 60 hours
    • 60 - 80 hours
    • More than 80 hours
Comments: (Free-form Text Box)
Please feel free to provide any additional comments about your Working Group experience, this Self-Assessment, or any other matter not covered elsewhere in this questionnaire:(Free-form Text Box)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK! 

***END***