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

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

Me too.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 6:18 AM
        To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 2 (Completed)
        
        
        Thanks Ken and Stéphane, I also agree.
        Regards
        Olga
        
        
        2009/12/11 <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
        

                Thanks Ken and Stéphane. I agree.
                 

                Wolf-Ulrich
                

                 

________________________________

                Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
                Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Dezember 2009 09:42
                An: Ken Bour
                Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
                Betreff: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 2 (Completed)
                
                

                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.   


                

                




        -- 
        Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
        www.south-ssig.com.ar