[gnso-wpm-dt] RE: WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)

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

To be frank Ken, I don't think the value that the GNSO seeks is for
ICANN the corporation.  It is the Board's responsibility to look out for
that. Keep in mind also that the Board has a secondary responsibility to
look out for the interests of the community.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:05 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)
        
        

        Chuck and Team:

         

        Agreed.   In terms of what is meant by "(2) ICANN" in the Y-axis
definition, I would like to redirect that question to Jaime who drafted
that portion, which I retained.   My interpretation was " ICANN the
corporation," but I defer to Jaime for his original intent.

         

        Ken

         

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:49 AM
        To: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)

         

        Very helpful Ken.  I have one initial comment regarding the
definition of Y: what is meant by "ICANN"?   I think we need to be more
specific.  People use that term in a variety of ways, sometimes meaning
ICANN the corporation, sometimes ICANN Staff and the Board, sometimes
meaning the ICANN community.  I think that what we mean here is the
ICANN community; if so, maybe we should say that.

         

        Chuck

                 

                
________________________________


                From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
                Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:57 AM
                To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)

                Work Prioritization Model DT:

                 

                To make things a bit easier to track, I think it may be
helpful to narrow each email thread to one particular task.  With that
in mind, the next task for the team to take up was labeled Step 2 in
Liz's email, "Solidify the definitions for the two axes/dimensions (X,
Y)."

                 

                The definitions below incorporate Chuck's and Jaime's
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: 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. 

                 

                To maintain our momentum, I took a shot at harmonizing
these ideas and crafting a replacement definition for Y:

                 

                Y - Value/Benefit ... this dimension relates to
perceptions of net overall effectiveness, productivity, and gain to:  1)
the Internet global community; 2) ICANN; and/or 3) its stakeholder
communities.  Components of value/benefit might include:  new
opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness,
resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure
problems, increased security/stability, and improved user experience.  

                 

                 

                I note that Olga has raised concerns about the use of
the term "Cost" in the X dimension.  Ken would like to concur that, in
this context, we were referring to "soft cost " and not to dollars per
se (very difficult to estimate) -- more like total human capital and
energy expended.  I haven't been able to find a concise set of nouns,
yet, that function like {Value/Benefit : Revenue} as {? : Cost}.   Would
"Expenditure" be any better or, maybe, "Energy"?  Below are a few
options to consider for renaming X that do not use "Cost":

                X - Expenditure/Complexity

                X - Expenditure/Energy

                X - Difficulty/Complexity

                X - Resource Consumption

                X - Resource/Time/Energy Consumption

                 

                I kinda like the last one, personally, and tried to
craft a modified definition for X on that basis: 

                 

                X - Resource/Time/Energy Consumption ... this dimension
relates to perceptions of total human capital expenditure anticipated
and also includes such factors as 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 -- all of which contribute to the
overall resource consumption required to develop a recommendation.  

                Hopefully, something in the above mix of ideas will
stimulate our collective creativity.

                 

                It would be ideal if we could finalize these definitions
before next week's session - to be scheduled.  I confirmed yesterday
that a Doodle poll will be issued shortly by Gisella or Glen.

                 

                Looking ahead briefly...the next task is testing one or
more rating/ranking methodologies.  As soon as we near completion of
Step 2, I will create a new thread for Step 3 (maybe even 3a, 3b, 3c,
etc.).   Staff will assume the burden of setting up the different
scenarios to test including forms and instructions.   Team members will
then rate/rank projects (individually and group) and then assess the
pros/cons of each approach.  More later...

                 

                Ken Bour