ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update from 23 Nov Prioritization Call

  • To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx, gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update from 23 Nov Prioritization Call
  • From: rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:23:12 +0000

Dear All

Two suggestions re projects:

1)NCSG Transition - one of the GNSO Improvement projects

2)Reviews relevant to GNSO stemming from AoC undertakings

Not sure if they fit....


Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:15:33 
To: <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update from 23 Nov Prioritization Call

Jaime and Team: 
Prior to our call this afternoon (3 Dec; 2000 UTC), I thought it might be 
helpful to address a few of Jaime’s comments (see below) to the Work 
Prioritization tasks ahead:  
Step 1:  It was our intention to capture “complexity” within the currently 
defined axis labeled Difficulty/Cost.   In terms of establishing a minimum time 
horizon or cost that would qualify a project to be ranked/rated on the official 
list, may I suggest that the question be deferred to a future stage in the 
team’s process?   Since we already have 20 or so active candidates on the table 
to be prioritized (the current workload), it seems most urgent to agree upon 
the X,Y scale definitions, rating/ranking methodology, outputs, and 
decisions.   It is also reasonable to expect that we might learn important 
lessons about how to establish minimum criteria after working through these 
Step 3:  As I mentioned on the last call, I think it will be more instructive, 
at the start, to treat ALL projects as though they can be stopped – at least 
theoretically.   Whether any particular project should be continued or stopped 
is, ultimately, a management decision that should derive from the rankings and 
prioritizations.   To do otherwise, in some ways, defeats the purpose of the 
exercise.   Once all projects are plotted and prioritized, that would be the 
time for the Council to decide whether any efforts should be suspended or 
closed, which teams are under- or over-resourced, and which projects are 
wandering, have lost momentum, or need an infusion of energy/impetus.    In 
other words, Jamie’s (b) and (c) strike me as implementation concerns that 
presumably would only be asked for projects that are rated/prioritized high 
enough to warrant such attention.   Looking at it another way, would we 
conclude that a project with low value, high cost, and high momentum should be 
rated/prioritized higher than one with identical value/cost ratings but low 
momentum?   The progress of any project, at a snapshot in time, is mostly a 
function of the leadership and/or team effort applied by the participants, but 
does not seem like it should influence the assessment of its overall priority, 
which we are currently expressing as value/benefit compared to 
Step 4:  The team previously considered adding a 3rd dimension (e.g. time or 
size) and determined that it would not substantively add to the analysis and 
might overly complicate the picture.   I went a step further on the last call 
and suggested that, if the Council could effectively rank the active projects 
in priority order without employing a two-dimensional rating/ranking system, 
that would be the easiest and simplest approach!   I believe that the sentiment 
was to stay with the Value/Cost idea at least until we see how it works in a 
test scenario. 
Comments welcome. 
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
 Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:41 PM
 To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update/summary from today's prioritization call
 Importance: High 
First of all I must apologize for my absence until now but it was involuntary.  
I was a victim of three technology problems in parallel. I’m very sorry for 
I read every message on the subject during the last three days and I’m very 
well impressed by the evolution. Congratulations Olga, Chuck, Liz and Ken. 
Even as a latecomer I would like to add some comments. 
Step 1 
Project, task, action item, all these terms have the same meaning of work to be 
done. What varies is complexity. I agree with Wolf-Ulrich that we should define 
a minimum time span or cost to consider some work to be done to constitute a 
project in the future. I think the outcome of this group will be a valuable 
tool to instruct Council decisions not only now but also in the future. 
I think the most difficult part of the job is to inform the newcomers as myself 
about the whole set of 20 or more projects at stake. 
Step 2 
1)      In regard to the refinement of the definition of the value axis I would 
amend as follows. 
Y – Value/Benefit … this dimension relates to perceptions of benefit to: a) the 
Internet global community; b) ICANN; c) its stakeholder groups, in this order; 
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 or in opening new opportunities of 
Step 3 
In my opinion the categories proposed by Chuck in fact reflect a third (or 
first) priority axis that we could call Momentum. This axis could have only 
three grades as proposed: 
a.       Projects that cannot stop or will move per se; 
b.      Projects that have a good momentum right now but can lose it. 
c.       Projects that are wandering at a low or intermittent pace 
So I would like to come back to Chuck’s proposition of firstly ranking or 
classifying the projects in this Momentum Category axis. Then we could follow 
with the prioritization of  all three categories in the two other axis, which I 
think should be numerical with weights unevenly spaced (1, 2, 4, 8, 10, for 
I don’t think this prioritization task would take more than two 2 hour meetings 
once everybody is informed about every project (refer to my observation in 
For these meetings I favor the Delphi approach Liz mentioned in an earlier 
message and which was not recalled. This same approach is used to assign 
complexity ratings in SCRUM but with an internal facilitator (scrum master, in 
this case). I my experience it converges relatively fast. 
Step 4) 
We would then have a three dimensional map (a cube) or three two dimensional 
maps (one for each category). 
Step 5) 
With this picture in hand we should ask the question if the exercise was indeed 
valuable to instruct a final one-dimensional prioritization. Because priority, 
in the end, means just precedence in time, in other words, order. 
Jaime Wagner
 j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>              
 skype: jaime_wagner 
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
 Sent: segunda-feira, 23 de novembro de 2009 23:10
 To: Liz Gasster; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
 Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update/summary from today's prioritization call 
Thanks Liz and Ken.  Please note my comments below. 
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 
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 
Seq No. 
WHOIS Studies 
New gTLDs-Special Trademark Issues 
Fast Flux 
IDN Fast Track Implementation Plan 
Geo Regions Review Communitywide WG 
Travel Policy 
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery 
Registration Abuse Policy WG 
PPSC-PDP Work Team 
PPSC-WG Work Team 
OSC-GNSO Operations Team 
OSC-Constituency & Stakeholder Operations Team 
OSC-Communications & Coordination Work Team 
GNSO Constituency Reconfirmations 
IRTP – Part B PDP 
Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
Internationalized Registration Data WG 
Registry/Registrar Vertical Integration 

 [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 
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 
 [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 
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.    
Liz Gasster 
Ken Bour 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy