Versions Compared

Version Old Version 5 New Version 6
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

Note

Note Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

  1. Initially, the questionnaire material is presented in plain text for the purposes of editing/finalizing the content. Once the 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.
  2. I recommend a 5-point versus 7-point scale for this purpose. The principle advantage is that it is easier (less stressful) for respondents to make selections when the option set is smaller. The disadvantage is that the statistics will generally exhibit more central tendency (toward the mid-point or 3) because the scale is narrower.
  3. All of this material is submitted as DRAFT and I welcome the SCI's feedback, questions, and challenges. For example, you will notice that I did not insert a question to assess Leadership because I think it can be inferred based upon other dimensions (e.g., Participation, Behavior). If a Chair, or other leader, contributed to an ineffective and inhospitable climate, we would hope to see one or more supplementary text comments to that effect.
  4. I have not attempted to complete this questionnaire to determine length. It "feels" to be within an acceptable range based upon others I have designed; however, we should perform a test to ensure that it (a) can be completed in a reasonable period; and (b) is clear, comprehensible, and straightforward.

...

 

 

Welcome and Introduction

Thank you for accepting the invitation to complete this 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. 

If you have any questions or concerns about this self-assessment instrument, please send an email to: ___________________________ and we will try to address them promptly. 

...

II. Norms and Operations

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group'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 Participation climate within the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: inhospitable, unlilateralunilateral, frustrating, unproductive; and
5-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: inviting, democratic, accepting, respectful, productive

12345SKIP
The Behavior of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: disruptive, argumentative, disrespectful, hostile, domineering; and
5-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: accommodating, respectful, collaborative, consensus-building
12345SKIP

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

12345SKIP

The Decision-Making Methodology (consensus)where:
1-Highly Ineffective means any/all of the following: broken, ignored, not observed, disrespected; and
5-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: honored, followed, observed, respected

12345SKIP
Comments:(Free-form Text Box)
III. Logistics and Requirements
Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Logistics and Requirements, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 5=Highly Effective:

...

IV. Products and Outputs

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

...

V. Personal Fulfillment and Demographics
Your Chartering Organization is interested to learn about your own participation and personal fulfillment as a result of having invested time and effort volunteering on a Working Group. In addition, we have included a few demographic questions that will assist in understanding and interpreting your feedback. 
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, unimportant
5-Highly Effective means any/all of the following: material, substantial, significant, important

12345SKIP

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
5-Highly Rewarding

12345SKIP
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)

...