Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

In this Draft v3 version of the questionnaire, I made the following changes:

The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to address Ron's concern expressed on the last conference call (2 July); and
In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered as a comment to Draft v2.

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.

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 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.

I. Personal Identifying Information (Required)

Anonymity Provision: Although this assessment instrument is requesting personal identifying information, it is being done ONLY as a preventive measure to ensure that (a) all WG Members' input has been received and (b) any spurious or duplicate entries do not undermine or contaminate the value of the feedback to the Chartering Organization. Please be assured that: (1) your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the ICANN Staff Administrator; and (2) they will not be disclosed or published in a way that could be matched to your identity without your express permission.

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 the most descriptive role that you fulfilled on the WG from the drop-down list: Leader (Chair, Co-Chair, Vice-Chair, Other Officer) Contributing Member Background Contributor Liaison Observer Advisor/Consultant Support (e.g., secretary, technical, administrative) Other (please describe): _____________________

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. Inputs ...includes the charter/mission, team members, tools, and resources.

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

Assessment Category

Rating

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

The Expertise of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means that, collectively, team members did not possess the appropriate knowledge/skills needed for the mission; and
7-Highly Effective means that team members, collectively, were appropriately knowledgeable and skilled to accomplish the mission

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

Comments about the WG's Inputs:

(Free-form Text Box)

III. Processes ...includes norms, operations, logistics, and decision-making.

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

Assessment Category

Rating

The Participation climate within the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inhospitable, unilateral, frustrating, unproductive; and
7-Highly Effective means inviting, inclusive, accepting, respectful, productive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

The Behavior of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disruptive, argumentative, disrespectful, hostile, domineering; and
7-Highly Effective means accommodating, respectful, collaborative, consensus-building

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

The Decision-Making Methodology (consensus) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means broken, ignored, not observed, disrespected; and
7-Highly Effective means honored, followed, observed, respected

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

The Session/Meeting Planning (Agenda) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disorganized, haphazard, unstructured, untimely notice; and
7-Highly Effective means organized, disciplined, structured, timely notice

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

Comments about the WG's Processes:

(Free-form Text Box)

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 7=Highly Effective:

Assessment Category

Rating

The Working Group's primary Mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means not achieved and/or accomplished per the Charter; and
7-Highly Effective means completely achieved and/or accomplished as directed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

The Quality of the WG's outputs (a.k.a. deliverables) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means incomplete, inadequate, materially deficient/flawed, unsupported; and
7-Highly Effective means complete, thorough, exhaustive, reasoned, supported

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

Comments about the WG's Products and Outputs:

(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 Category

Rating

My personal Engagement in helping the WG achieve its mission:
1-Participated Never; and
7-Participated Extensively

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

My personal Fulfillment considering the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG:
1-Highly Unrewarding; and
7-Highly Rewarding

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SKIP

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)

Additional Comments:
(Please feel free to provide any additional feedback 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***

Questionnaire (Draft v3)

Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Welcome and Introduction

I. Personal Identifying Information (Required)

II. Inputs ...includes the charter/mission, team members, tools, and resources.

III. Processes ...includes norms, operations, logistics, and decision-making.

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

IV. Products and Outputs

V. Personal Fulfillment and Demographics

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK!