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

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

Interesting idea Jaime.  What advantages to you think this would add and
what is the value of increasing the delta between ratings as they
increase?
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
        Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 7:19 PM
        To: 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Ken Bour'
        Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step
2
        Importance: High
        
        

        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
        j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.