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

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

Jaimie,
 
Are you suggesting a linear scale on one axis and non-linear on the other?  I 
still don't understand the possible benefits but am open to exploring it 
further if I understand the benefits.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Jaime Wagner
        Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 7:39 AM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2
        
        

        Ken and Chuck,

         

        Indeed, when it comes to priority and value, a single order is enough 
and anything else is unnecessary.

         

        But, in terms of relative cost (broadly speaking Olga :)  or complexity 
or use of a certain amount of fixed capacity items don't relate to each other 
linearly.

         

        It remains the problem of finding a suitable scale. Anyway, to give an 
idea of relative complexity, the span of a linear scale can be inadequate .

         

        Jaime Wagner
        j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx             

        +55(51)8126-0916
        skype: jaime_wagner
        
        

         

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: sábado, 12 de dezembro de 2009 21:41
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

         

        Jaime:

         

        Like Chuck, I am also curious to understand how a non-symmetrical scale 
would improve the prioritization process and, of equal importance, how it might 
be defended.

         

        We should keep in mind that the purpose of the rating scale is to allow 
projects to be positioned on a two-dimensional chart relative to each other.   
The numerical series does not have to be 1-7, but it is critical that the 7th 
value be the same distance or interval away from the middle value as the 1st 
one.  In other words, it should be symmetrical.  Your example scale implies 
that projects rated above average on the Value/Benefit dimension (for example) 
are exponentially more valuable than those that are below average.  If you'll 
pardon the analogy, it is similar to operating a see-saw with double poundage 
on one side.   Secondly, once we leave a symmetrical pattern, how would we 
select one that could withstand being challenged as arbitrarily?  For example, 
starting with your series, why not this alternative:  1-2-4-7-11-16-22?   (I 
incremented the intervals consistently:  1-2-3-4-5-6).  

         

        I would suggest that, once we complete the first test, we should be in 
a better position to evaluate alternative scaling options.

         

        Regards,

         

        Ken

         

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:18 AM
        To: Jaime Wagner; Olga Cavalli; Ken Bour
        Cc: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Consensus on Step 1 and Step 2

         

        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             

                +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.