Dear
Ken,
Thank
you for the excellent efforts. In following your various email exchanges
with Committee members I noted (from below) the following:
3. The PDP is a
complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated
exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method.
On the last point,
we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs.
individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would
delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or
a random sample of appropriate WGs.
Most
of us on this list will agree with you that PDPs are complex. For my part,
I would like us to keep our eye on the ball vis-¨¤-vis establishing an assessment
questionnaire that is more one-size-fits-all as opposed to different
questionnaires for different purposes. Better to try to compare apples to
apples as best we can.
PDP
methodology is pushing the limits, in my view, in terms of what we are looking
for now.
My
two cents (as a member, rather than Chair).
Thanks,
RA
From:
owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Bour
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 15:05
To: 'Mike O'Connor';
gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc: 'Hoggarth, Robert
(ICANN)'
Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG
Self-Assessment Questionnaire
Mikey:
Based upon the way I
have designed the WG Self-Assessment, the PROCESS dimension is intended to refer
to the WG¡¯s internal operations (norms, logistics, decision-making, etc.). In
that framework, I would consider the PDP to be an INPUT to the WG (imposed
methodology) and, based upon your earlier comments, I attempted to cover it
generically in the 1st question of Section II. If a WG member found
that the PDP (or any other requirement/constraint) was detrimental to the team¡¯s
ability to accomplish its mission, he/she could address it in Section II of the
questionnaire.
I would recommend
that the WG Self-Assessment instrument not be a means for evaluating the PDP
(per se) for three reasons:
1)
The WG Guidelines
and Charter Template (source documents) do not specifically integrate the PDP
within the WG process scope; rather, the PDP is specified as part of the ICANN
Bylaws.
2)
Not all WGs deal
with PDP issues, which would mean that any such questions would have to be
skipped for some percentage of respondents. The WG Guidelines mention the PDP,
but only as an example of the type of methodology that may be imposed upon a WG
chartered to address a domain name policy issue.
3)
The PDP is a
complex, multi-step process in its own right and probably should be evaluated
exhaustively, but separately, via survey or other method.
On the last point,
we were looking for a set of questions that a WG might address collectively vs.
individually. Perhaps a separate questionnaire could be developed that would
delve deeply into the PDP methodology itself and could be administered to all or
a random sample of appropriate WGs.
Ken
From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:12
AM
To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org
Cc:
Hoggarth, Robert (ICANN); Ken Bour
Subject: Re:
[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Draft v2-WG Self-Assessment
Questionnaire
hi Ken,
see? sometimes i'm not so lightning fast in my
replies.
this is looking really good. i've got just a little bit
i'd like to see us work into the "Processes" section. is there a way to
get a question or two in there that gives participants a chance to talk about
the PDP process? we've got decision-making methodology (consensus) in
there already, maybe this question/LO is closely related to that? looking
back at the projects that the SCI is working on (method to suspend/end a WG is a
good example), i think some feedback on the *structure* of the PDP would be
helpful.
for example, we have a lot of comment-periods (and subsequent
reviews of those comments) built into the PDP right now. Marika laid all
those end to end one time and came up with a minimum time to get through a PDP
that's pretty long. it would be nice to start getting feedback from WG
participants as to whether they felt that those were all needed and whether they
were helpful to the work of the WG. i'm seeing a transition in the way
that WG's review those comments. at first, the review felt like a burden
that we had to get through because it was a requirement imposed on us by the
PD. more recently those comment-reviews have been a really good source of
discussion-points and preliminary language that we've woven into initial and
final reports.
if we stick with that example, there's a process-definition
dimension (have we got the right number of comment-periods?) and a
process-effectiveness dimension (did the WG effectively make use of those
comments in doing their analysis?). both are important. we don't
want to change a good process that's being badly carried out, in that case we
want to improve the effectiveness of the WG participants. we DO want to
review a bad process even though the WG has implemented it well if that
badly-defined process is hurting effectiveness and timeliness.
one reason i picked that particular example is because
there's a lot of pressure to become "more agile" in the PDP right now.
what this often turns into is a shorthand for "do it faster!" and, since
the comment/review cycles are fixed/required that sometimes means that the only
place to shorten the process is the deliberative portion of the WG's work.
it would be nice to be able to get some data from participants that might give
an early indication that something needs to change there. that analysis
would also be helpful in the "let's not break/bypass the bottom-up process" and
"policy vs implementation" conversations that are going on at the
moment.
thanks Ken -- really like where this is
headed.
mikey
On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Ken Bour <ken.bour@verizon.net>
wrote:
SCI
Members:
I have been thinking
about the topics raised by Mikey and Avri in their first impressions of the
Draft Self-Assessment Questionnaire. Something was definitely missing from the
original formulation, which led to an ¡°Aha!¡± moment spurring me to create a
second design which, I hope, addresses a few of the comments expressed thus
far.
I have reconstituted
the questionnaire (still five sections but renamed), reorganized some of the
original questions, and added a few new ones. In order not to lose track of the
first iteration, I made a completely new page and will henceforth house all
questionnaire versions under a new heading: Questionnaire
Drafts/Versions (https://community.icann.org/x/ai5-Ag).
In this new Draft v2
iteration (https://community.icann.org/x/bC5-Ag), I am
attempting to take into consideration the dimension raised by Mikey that was
only partially accommodated in Draft v1. To evaluate any dynamic system, we
could subdivide it into three basic or core components: Inputs ¡ú Processes ¡ú Outputs. In
the first version, I captured many of the processes, the outputs, but only a few
of the inputs, namely, team member representativeness, tools, and outside
experts. I did not ask about the other critical inputs that impinge upon the
success of a WG, e.g., its charter/mission (including time or other constraints)
and team memberexpertise. That led to a reconceptualization of the
external resources questions into three buckets: administrative, technical, and
human.
This Draft v2 also
shifts the rating scale to 7 points and adds ¡°Background Contributor¡± to the
Role list as suggested by Avri.
I thank Mikey and
Avri for their ideas/suggestions and look forward to additional feedback from
the team¡
Ken
PHONE:
651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for
Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)