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

["Rosemary Sinclair" <Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Happy with that!

 

Thanks

 

Rosemary

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 6:46 AM
To: Rosemary Sinclair; Ken Bour; owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update from 23 Nov Prioritization Call

 

Thanks for the suggestions Rosemary.  Please see my responses below.

 

Chuck

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:23 PM
        To: Ken Bour; owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] Update from 23 Nov Prioritization
Call

        Dear All
        
        Two suggestions re projects:
        
        1)NCSG Transition - one of the GNSO Improvement projects
        [Gomes, Chuck] Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by
NCSG Transition, I believe this is a task that is primarily between the
NCSG and the ICANN Staff/Board and that the Council is simply being kept
informed about progress. 
        
        2)Reviews relevant to GNSO stemming from AoC undertakings
        [Gomes, Chuck] I think this is an ICANN Staff/Board project
rather than a GNSO project. But to the extent that the GNSO is asked to
provide members to the review teams and/or the task of developing
measurable objectives to be used by the review teams, then I think it
could be become a project. 
        
        Not sure if they fit....
        
        Cheers
        
        Rosemary 

        Sent from my BlackBerry(r) from Optus

        
________________________________


        From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

        Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:15:33 +1100

        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 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