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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken, I agree with your comments.
Please note that for the next conference call I must be called to my hotel
as I cannot access the indicated number from here.
Number was sent to Gisella and Glen on a different email.
Regards
Olga

2009/12/3 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>  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 exercises.
>
>
>
> 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 difficulty/cost.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 that.
>
>
>
> 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 growth. *
>
> * *
>
> 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 instance).
>
>
>
> 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 step1).
>
>
>
> 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
>
> +55(51)8126-0916
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>


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