The purpose of this page is to outline the Scope of a potential WG Self-Assessment. Included below is a broad compendium of potential Learning Objectives (LO) extracted from the WG Guidelines and Charter documentation. The next step would be to develop a targeted questionnaire by selecting carefully from this material. 

 LO: Most Effective Recruitment Sources

  • How did you learn about the WG? 
    • I was informed or invited through 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)

The following LOs could take the form of questions asking for a rating utilizing a Likert-type scale (e.g., 1-Highly Ineffective to 7-Highly Effective). The interpretation of effectiveness could be given for each one along the lines shown below. This is just one possible formulation and is not intended to be a final recommendation.

LO: Effectiveness of WG Operations and Norms

  • WG Member Participation/Engagement
    • Ineffective: closed, inhospitable, unaccepting, dominated/controlled by one or few participants, unproductive
    • Effective: open, inviting, accepting, most/many participating, productive
  • WG Member Representativeness
    • Ineffective: narrow, unbalanced
    • Effective: broad, balanced
  • Process Integrity (Rules/Norms)
    • Ineffective: broken, ignored, not observed
    • Effective: followed, observed
  • Individual/Group Behavior
    • Ineffective: disruptive, argumentative, closed to viewpoints
    • Effective: accommodating, open to viewpoints, accepting, productive
  • Decision-Making  & Consensus Methodology
    • Ineffective: broken, ignored, not observed
    • Effective: followed, observed
  • Appeals Process (if used)
    • Ineffective: did not function as designed
    • Effective: worked as designed

LO: Effectiveness of Logistics and Requirements

  • Session/Meeting Planning (Agenda)
    • Ineffective: disorganized, haphazard, unstructured, untimely notice
    • Effective: organized, disciplined, structured, timely notice
  • Communication/Collaboration Tools
    • Ineffective: difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, not helpful/useful
    • Effective: easy, straightforward, clear, helpful/useful
  • Translations
    • Ineffective: unavailable, untimely
    • Effective: available, timely
  • Briefings and Subject Matter Experts
  • Ineffective: inappropriate, untimely, not helpful/useful
  • Effective: appropriate, timely, helpful/useful 

LO: Products and Outputs

  • Achievement of WG Mission
    • Ineffective: not accomplished
    • Effective: accomplished as directed
  • Quality of Outputs (or deliverables)
    • Ineffective: incomplete, inadequate, unresearched, unsupported, indefensible
    • Effective: complete, thorough, researched, supported, defensible

LO: Personal Gratification/Fulfillment (Note: may assist in future recruitment efforts)

  • I assess my own participation in helping the WG achieve its mission as
    • Ineffective: immaterial, negligible, insignificant
    • Effective: material, substantial, significant
  • Overall, the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG was
    • Ineffective: unrewarding, wasteful
    • Effective: rewarding, valuable 


  • No labels