Draft Recommendation 17
That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation becomes standard at the completion of the WG’s work; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP.
| Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): | CG - Accept as is. |
|---|---|
| Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): |
Rationale: MK: Accept as-is. This is already a requirement. |
| Basis for Assessment: | |
| Work in Progress: | WG self-assessment mechanism has been developed and is typically required per the WGs charter. |
| Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: | |
| Milestones: | Each completed WG |
| Responsibility: | Staff/WGs |
Public Comments Received
Comment # | Submitted By | Affiliation | Comment |
Recommendation 17 (Continuous Development): That the practice of Working Group self-evaluation becomes standard at the completion of the WG’s work; and that these evaluations should be published and used as a basis for continual process improvement in the PDP. | |||
21 | Paul Diaz | gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group | (Support) Self-evaluation for Working Groups should be used cautiously in cases where financial incentives were provided for some working group members (Please see comments to the item 3). In such cases, conflicts of interests should be identified and taken into consideration when applying self-evaluations. |
58 | Osvaldo Novoa | ISPCP | (Support) |
122 | Will Hudson | If adopted would add greater accountability to the policy development process, increase metricsdriven policy decisions, and increase the efficacy of the process by leveraging the services of professional moderators, especially in circumstances where working group members may be conflicted. Additionally, we believe it is crucial that the GAC be involved earlier in the process. | |
182 | Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo | Business Constituency | Is this Recommendation genuinely going to add to the effectiveness of a PDP or simply make it even longer? |
210 | Stephanie Perrin | NCUC/NCSG | Sounds good, but folks are already having trouble making all the meetings and calls. More administrative tasks are not necessarily welcome, and may lack sufficient participation to be valid. |
254 | Greg Shatan | IPC | (It Depends) Any self-evaluation should accommodate Working Group performance reviews from ICANN policy personnel. Few individuals involved in any Working Group are similarly or equally well-positioned to provide candid and objective feedback to community participants. Such reviews should not represent either self-congratulatory verbiage, or sour grapes, as between community personalities. |
300 | Amr Elsadr |
| This is already a standard practice, however, I am not familiar with the evaluations having been previously published. If they are not, they should be. |
328 | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | ALAC | (Support) The ALAC recommends that the process of Working Group self-evaluation should be not only “standard” but also “mandatory.” That being said, the exhaustion which often follows the completion of a WG needs to be factored in, and any post-WG activities must be made as painless as possible. |
