Versions Compared

Version Old Version 1 New Version 2
Changes made by

Ken Bour

Ken Bour

Saved on

Key

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

...

Note

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

In this Draft

v2

v3 version of the questionnaire, I

am attempting to take into consideration a dimension raised by Mikey O'Connor and only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs → Processes → Outputs. In Draft v1, we captured most of the processes, the outputs, but only a few of the inputs, namely, the team members, tools, and experts. I did not ask about the other resources that impinge upon the success of a WG, e.g., its charter and constraints (required processes, time horizon). In Draft v2, I have reconstituted the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the original questions, and added a few new ones. This Draft v2 also shifts the rating scale to 7 points as suggested by Avri Doria

made the following changes:

  1. The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to address Ron's concern;
  2. In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback.

...

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. 

...

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 (1-5 7 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. 

...

Assessment CategoryRating

The Charter/Mission of the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means confusing, vague, ill-structured, unbounded, unrealistic (e.g., time, constraints), unachievable; and
7-Highly Effective means understandable, clear, well-structured, bounded, realistic (e.g., time, constraints), achievable

1234567SKIP

The Expertise of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means novicethat, elementary, inapplicable, unusablecollectively, team members did not possess the appropriate knowledge/skills needed for the mission; and
7-Highly Effective means knowledgeablethat team members, advanced, applicable, usablecollectively, were appropriately knowledgeable and skilled to accomplish the mission

1234567SKIP

The Representativeness of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means narrow, skewed, selective, unbalanced; and
7-Highly Effective means broad, diverse, balanced

1234567SKIP

The external Human Resources (e.g., briefings, experts, consultants, liaisons) provided to the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Technical Resources (e.g., systems, tools, platforms, templates) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, tedious, slow, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Administrative Resources (e.g., support, guidelines, documentation) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
Comments about the WG's Inputs: (Free-form Text Box)

...

V. Personal Fulfillment and Demographics
Your Chartering Organization is interested to learn about your own

...

Engagement 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

My personalParticipation Engagement in helping the WG achieve its mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means immaterial, negligible, insignificant, unimportantParticipated Never; and
7-Highly Effective means material, substantial, significant, importantParticipated Extensively

1234567SKIP

My personal Fulfillment considering the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG:
1-Highly Unrewarding; and
7-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 about Personal Fulfillment and Demographics:  (Free-form Text Box)

...