RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olga and all,

 

This is just to say that I'm okay with the progress and I'm in favor of the
ranking though numbers .

 

I would only remember a suggestion I gave since I don't know if it was
considered:

 

What about using unevenly spaced weights? That means, instead of
1-2-3-4-5-6-7, for instance 1-2-3-5-8-10-15.

 

 

Jaime Wagner
 <mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

+55(51)8126-0916
skype: jaime_wagner



 

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: sexta-feira, 11 de dezembro de 2009 09:39
To: Ken Bour
Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

 


Dear Working team members,

First let me thank Liz and Ken for an excellent work and support given to
this working team. 

During our conference calls and through the exchange of ideas in our email
list, we have agreed on a project list definition (step 1) and on the x y
axis for the two dimensions model (step 2). I have copied these outcomes in
this email for facilitating your review.

It is important that we all agree in the outcome of these two steps, as they
will be the basis of the next prioritizaton excersise.

In this sense I kindly ask those of you who could not attend the conference
calls to review the information included in this email and send a
confirmation to the email list saying that you agree with them or suggest
any changes, if needed.

Confirmations or suggested changes should be sent today, as we will start
our prioritization excersise imediately.

Best regards and have a nice weekend.

Olga


Step 1:

The following table shows the revised list of projects (and revised
abbreviations in red) that will be rated/ranked and ultimately prioritized. 

Active Project List


Seq No.

Name

Abbreviation

                        

1

New gTLDs-Special Trademark Issues

STI

                        

2

IDN Fast Track Implementation Plan

IDNF


3

Geo Regions Review Communitywide WG

GEO


4

Travel Policy 

TRAV


5

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

PED


6

Registration Abuse Policy WG

ABUS


7

Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN WG

JIG


8

PPSC-PDP Work Team

PDP


9

PPSC-WG Work Team

WG


10

OSC-GNSO Operations Team

GCOT


11

OSC-Constituency & Stakeholder Operations Team

CSG


12

OSC-Communications & Coordination Work Team

CCT

                        

13

IRTP - Part B PDP

IRTB

                        

14

Registrar Accreditation Agreement

RAA


15

Internationalized Registration Data WG

IRD

                        

 

The following projects were removed from the original list for one of three
reasons (ref. "Category" column), but will be maintained in a separate table
so that the team does not lose track of them:

 

1)      Community Inactive ("I"):  the work effort is waiting on or pending
another action (e.g. Staff report) or decision  (e.g. Council motion) and is
not currently consuming community resources.

2)      Monitor Only ("M") :  the work effort is not fundamentally
prioritized by the Council, but it does maintain an interest from an
informational perspective (Note: also includes liaison activities).

3)      Not a GNSO Project ("X"):  the work effort is not or not yet a GNSO
initiative and cannot be properly evaluated (ranked/rated) and prioritized
by the Council.

 


Category

Name

Abbreviation


I

WHOIS Studies

WHO1


I

Fast Flux 

FF


I

Synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements

WHO2


M

GNSO Constituency Reconfirmations

GCR


X

Registry/Registrar Vertical Integration

RRVI

 

The three category explanations above may need tweaking, but I hope I
captured the essence of the team's discussion accurately.

Step 2:

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.

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.