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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Liz and Ken.  Please note my comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
        Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 6:56 PM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update/summary from today's
prioritization call
        
        

         

        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) [Gomes, Chuck]  or (2-4 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


        [Gomes, Chuck] I don't think the following are projects for
prioritization, at least not yet: #4 - IDNF;  #15 - GCR; #17 - WHO2.
And I am not sure #1 - WHO1 is ready for prioritization. Finally, it is
not clear that #20 - RRVI is a GNSO project, at least not yet. 

         

        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) 
        [Gomes, Chuck] Good start on this. 

         

        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 ...)?  [Gomes, Chuck]  I prefer numerical rating
because it allows for more differentiation.  Ties are fine in my
opinion. 

        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)[Gomes, Chuck]  Couldn't we finish these latter
two by 1 Dec and then the former two by 11 Dec? 

        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.  [Gomes, Chuck] It would be great if we could finish before the
17 Dec Council meeting but that may not be possible.  At the latest we
should try to finish before the first Council meeting in January. 

        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