[gnso-wpm-dt] Update/summary from today's prioritization call

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Work Prioritization Drafting Team (WP-DT):

This email summarizes the action items from the teleconference today.

As a precursor to developing a prioritization of GNSO's discrete project work, 
in principle, the team supports a 2-dimensional model comparing Value/Benefit 
to Difficulty/Cost as presented by Liz/Ken in an email to the list dated 20 Nov 
2009.   This construct may undergo additional refinements; but, for the 
purposes of moving forward, it is accepted as a starting point for further team 
discussions.

The following six action steps are proposed by Staff so that the team can 
finalize the design elements and begin testing/prototyping a specific approach 
before it makes a final set of recommendations to the GNSO Council.

Step 1)           Finalize the actual project list and acronyms (3-4 letter 
abbreviations)  [...see starting table below pulled from the GNSO project 
(action) list].   Via the email list, the team should confirm the listing, 
identify any other missing projects (e.g. this one?), and approve the 
abbreviations.   The sequence numbers are for identification and reference 
purposes only.

Target Completion Date:  Tuesday, 1 Dec 2009  (finalize at next 
teleconference-TBD)

Seq No.

Name

Abbreviation

1

WHOIS Studies

WHO1

2

New gTLDs-Special Trademark Issues

STI

3

Fast Flux

FF

4

IDN Fast Track Implementation Plan

IDNF

5

Geo Regions Review Communitywide WG

GEO

6

Travel Policy

TRA

7

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

PED

8

Registration Abuse Policy WG

RAP

9

Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN WG

JIG

10

PPSC-PDP Work Team

PDP

11

PPSC-WG Work Team

WGT

12

OSC-GNSO Operations Team

GCO

13

OSC-Constituency & Stakeholder Operations Team

CSG

14

OSC-Communications & Coordination Work Team

CCT

15

GNSO Constituency Reconfirmations

GCR

16

IRTP - Part B PDP

IRTB

17

Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements

WHO2

18

Registrar Accreditation Agreement

RAA

19

Internationalized Registration Data WG

IRD

20

Registry/Registrar Vertical Integration

RRVI



Step 2)           Solidify the definitions for the two axes/dimensions (X, Y).  
 The definitions below incorporate Chuck's recent additions and are submitted 
to the team for further refinement and improvement.
X - Difficulty/Cost ... this dimension relates to perceptions of complexity 
(e.g. technical), intricacy (e.g. many moving parts to coordinate), lack of 
cohesion (e.g. many competing interests), length of time needed/expected; 
availability/scarcity of resources and, therefore, overall cost to develop a 
recommendation.

Y - Value/Benefit ... this dimension relates to perceptions of benefit to ICANN 
and its stakeholders in terms of internet growth/expansion, enhancing 
competitiveness, increasing security/stability, and improving the user 
experience.  Qualitative factors might include:  extent/breadth of Internet 
community impacted and criticality of project in resolving serious problems.

Target Completion Date:  Tuesday, 1 Dec 2009  (finalize at next 
teleconference-TBD)


Step 3)           Utilize this drafting team to exercise and test the 
ranking/rating methodology as a proof-of-concept:

a)      Ensure that the process is user-friendly and straightforward to execute

b)     As a byproduct of testing, realistic outputs will be created to show 
what they might look like once the process is actually completed by the entire 
Council; that is, results/outcomes will be easier to comprehend than a 
"conceptual" or "hypothetical" model.
Staff suggests that the WP-DT use exactly the methodology that it will 
recommend to the Council, that is, if each Council member will be asked to 
rate/rank individually, then the drafting team should do the same in its test.  
 If, instead, the team thinks that the Council should form sub-groups to 
produce consensus rankings/ratings, then Staff suggests that the WP-DT do 
likewise.   Incidentally, this team could choose to execute one or more 
different approaches and, after comparing the pros/cons of those various 
trials, decide which one combines the best features.
If only one option will be tested, then, this team needs to choose:

a)      Should projects be rated (relatively) with a scale such as H, M, L or 
ranked numerically?  If the latter option is selected, should ties be 
permitted, that is, can two projects be ranked the same (e.g. 1-1-3-4-5-5-7 
...)?

b)     Should Council members rate/rank individually or should sub-groups be 
formed to discuss and recommend a single consensus answer from each one?
Target Completion Date:  11 Dec 2009  (??? -- to be discussed at next 
teleconference-TBD)

Step 4)           Develop the results matrix/chart based on the 
rankings/ratings produced in Step 3.
Target Completion Date:  14 Dec 2009  (1-2 days after data have been received 
by Staff)

Step 5)           Team assessment of the construct and process/methodology and 
recommendations.
Target Completion Date:  21 Dec 2009

Step 6)           Assuming no changes after Step 5, the team could then focus 
on HOW it might utilize the data in terms of developing a prioritization (the 
ultimate goal of this effort).   Prior to this stage, Staff will prepare some 
guidance for consideration.
Target Completion Date:  11 Jan 2010  (depending upon team meeting schedules)

The target complete dates above are meant to be suggestive only.  We expect 
that they will be discussed/revised at the team's next meeting.
Once these six steps are completed, the WP-DT should have a clear product and 
methodology to present to the Council.
Staff stands ready to continue assisting in this effort in whatever ways you 
deem productive.
Regards,
Liz Gasster
Ken Bour