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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Liz and Ken for summarizing what we discussed today and next steps,
thanks also Chuck for your comments,
See mine below.
We welcome comments from other members of this working team.
Regards
Olga

2009/11/23 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.
>
>
Olga: I think is ok that in this stage we include all projects, then we
decide what to prioritize and how. In this sense we also follow up  IDN PDP
WG1  and ccNSO, we should add them?

>
>
> *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.
> *
>
> Olga: I still have doubts about the cost variable, but perhaps we should
make a first round to check how it shows and works for the projects.

> * *
>
> *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.
>
> Olga: yes ties may exist and two projects could be ranked the same, why
not?

> b)     Should Council members rate/rank individually or should sub-groups
> be formed to discuss and recommend a single consensus answer from each one?
>
> Olga: I think sub-groups may be easier and the excersice could add value to
the group.

>
>
> 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?
>
> Olga: I agree with Chuck´s comments here.

> *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.
>
> Olga: We should try to finish before 17 dec.

> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar