Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 2 (Completed)

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken,

I would suggest just the following small wording change on the X axis 
definition, the idea being that having the word budget in the definition 
includes that notion of cost in there as one of the factors to be considered 
(even though you mention overall cost, I think a specific reference to 
budgetary considerations is important):

> X – Resource 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/energy expected; availability/scarcity of resources, budget -- all of 
> which contribute to the total resource consumption and overall cost (economic 
> and otherwise) required to develop a recommendation.
> 
Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 11 déc. 2009 à 01:04, Ken Bour a écrit :

> Team Members:
>  
> As a result of our productive conference call today, 10 December (2000 UTC), 
> the team solidified the definitions for the X/Y axes in the two dimensional 
> model that will be used to establish project prioritization for the GNSO. 
>  
> I did a bit more fine-tuning to the wording while staying consistent with the 
> team’s consensus changes:
>  
> Y – Value/Benefit … this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value 
> and benefit to:  1) the global Internet community; and 2) ICANN stakeholders. 
>  Components of this dimension may include, but are not limited to:  new 
> opportunities for Internet growth/expansion, enhanced competitiveness, 
> resolution/improvement of serious performance or infrastructure problems, 
> increased security/stability, and improved user experience. 
>  
> X – Resource 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/energy expected; availability/scarcity of resources -- all of which 
> contribute to the total resource consumption and overall cost (economic and 
> otherwise) required to develop a recommendation. 
> 
> It would be helpful to have agreement on this final wording in the next day 
> or so since it will be used as a basis for the first WPM-DT test that will be 
> performed in the next seven days (see separate email). 
>  
> I understand, from our discussion today, that Olga will formally ask for team 
> consensus on both Step 1 and Step 2.  
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ken
>  
> P.S.  A separate email will be forthcoming regarding the Step 1 Project List 
> consolidation (names, definitions, abbreviations) and the team’s approach for 
> Step 3-Testing Rating Methodologies.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature