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

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

 

My intention was to voice something that I believed obvious. Your comment
shows that my belief was wrong.

 

What I thought was obvious is the priority of the whole over its parts.

 

In this sense,  I think that ICANN interests are below the interests of the
Internet community as a whole; and ICANN the corporation is above its
stakeholders.

 

I also think we should not  equate the Internet community with the
stakeholder groups in the constituencies of ICANN. Reasoning "ad absurdum":
in the event that ICANN disappears, the community would not disappear, but
the stakeholder groups would.

 

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: sexta-feira, 4 de dezembro de 2009 16:35
To: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] RE: WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)

 

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