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

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

Jaime,
 
Please see my comments below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Jaime Wagner [mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:59 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] RE: WPM-DT: Step 2 (In Progress)
        
        

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] If I am an ICANN director, because I have a
fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, I think it is true that the
corporation is above all else. But it is not the stakeholders who have
the primary task of protecting the corportation; the GNSO's primary
responsibility is developing policy related to the gTLDs that is within
ICANN's (the corporation's) mission and best meets the collective needs
of the community.

         

        I also think we should not  equate the Internet community with
the stakeholder groups in the constituencies of ICANN. [Gomes, Chuck]
Totally agree.

         

        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