[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 1 [Revision]--Consolidated Project List with Descriptions

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane: 

You?re probably right that I do need some time off, but my client (ICANN!)
has been keeping me pretty busy lately (he acknowledges quite happily).   J

Actually, now that I think about your comment, we do have a Table 2 that
includes projects that were removed from the ACTIVE list.   I will add it to
Table 2 assuming no objections from other team members.    

Good suggestion! 

Ken

 

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 2:52 PM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 1 [Revision]--Consolidated Project
List with Descriptions

 

Thanks Ken.

 

May I suggest some time off over the holidays ;)

 

More seriously, one of the major uses I see this project as having is
providing a comprehensive, organised list of current GNSO projects. I
therefore think it is a mistake not to list it. However, I understand your
point about the risk to the prioritization effort if this project gets
downgraded. To address that, why not create another category so that we can
put "un-prioritisable" projects in. This one would be in that class...

 

Stéphane

Le 11 déc. 2009 à 18:53, Ken Bour a écrit :





Stéphane:

I think you make an insightful observation that I had actually considered
earlier, but I don?t recall that the team has discussed it.  

One way to look at this particular work is that it is a meta activity
because it is dealing with the subject of prioritizing all other projects.
Although unlikely (but theoretically possible), what if we ended up rating
the WPM as low value and heavy effort and, as a result, we prioritized it
OFF the active TO DO list?   Yikes!   Since its purpose is to develop a
prioritization scheme/process, it doesn?t seem to make sense to add it to
the list of candidates.   I would take the same position with respect to the
Council?s actual prioritization work effort (when we get to that stage).  

This question reminds me of a paradox or one of those self-referential
circular puzzles (e.g. ?Liar?s Dilemma?).    Although certainly not an
iron-clad argument, perhaps the following triad will help illustrate this
line of thought: 

1.      All GNSO projects must be prioritized before they may be activated
or continued.

2.      WPM is a GNSO project to prioritize all projects.

3.      ?but WPM is an un-prioritized GNSO project, therefore it may not be
activated or continued.

 

J  Just grist for the mill?

 

Ken

 

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:02 PM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Step 1 [Revision]--Consolidated Project
List with Descriptions

 

That's really good Ken, thanks.

 

Just one thing, which seems so obvious that this group has probably
addressed it already and I must simply have missed it: there an acronym
missing from your table: WPM.

 

The prioritization work is crucial to Council and should included in the
list of live projects in my opinion.

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane

Le 11 déc. 2009 à 17:44, Ken Bour a écrit :






Team Members:

 

As discussed during our teleconference on 10 December (2000 UTC), it was
agreed that Staff would combine the Short Descriptions that Liz assembled
with the two tables of Active and Removed Projects per my summary email of 4
December. 

 

Attached is a Word doc that consolidates all of the information for the
team?s review and approval. 

 

Please note that, following Chuck?s suggestion, the Names in Table 1 and
Table 2 are bookmarked to short descriptions provided deeper in the same
document.   With this approach, those who already know the projects do not
have to scroll past descriptive text.   For those who are unfamiliar with
any project, they can simply click the link and be whisked to the
description including any external hyperlinks that have been inserted.  

 

Please let me know if this meets the team?s needs.

 

I am moving next to the individual rating task instructions and procedures.
Hopefully, I will have them published later today (no later than Monday
morning) so that you have several days to work on them before our next
session on 17 December. 

 

Ken Bour

 

P.S.  I will make the change to add ?budget? to the X-axis definition per
Stéphane?s input, but thought I would wait for Olga?s consensus call that
all members have signaled agreement to the Step 1 and Step 2 outputs.    

 

<Consolidated GNSO Projects & Short Descriptions (KBv1).doc>