[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Summary of 12 Jan 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-In Progress)
WPM-DT Members:
I apologize, once again, that the email I wrote last week was not delivered
in a timely manner. I am making double-sure that this one leaves my Outbox
and makes it to the email list.
As a result of our call yesterday (12 January 2010), the following is a
summary of key actions and decisions:
1) We finalized the Y and X definitions as follows:
Y - Value/Benefit . this dimension relates to perceptions of overall value
and benefit primarily for the GNSO, but also considering ICANN's
stakeholders and the global Internet community. 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 - Resources Needed . 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. [Note: for projects already in progress,
estimates include only those resources remaining from the point of
assessment through to completion of the final recommendation; prior
historical/sunk resources are not factored into this dimension].
2) Attached is a revised GNSO WPM Projects & Short Descriptions
document (now KBv4) in which I incorporated those changes discussed by the
team. To make sure I captured them all, please see the following
itemization:
. Deleted the GNSO Website Project from Table 2 on the basis that it
is not quite at the "Implem" stage yet.
. Added the word "Glossary" to the heading for the Short
Descriptions section of the document and a brief introduction as to how this
section is organized.
. Alphabetized the Short Descriptions by Title and added the
abbreviations. As I was thinking about it, I also alphabetized both Tables
so that, in keeping with Jaime's suggestion, there is a tighter
correspondence between sections. I note that, since we agreed to use the
abbreviations everywhere (instead of sequence numbers), retaining the
original order is not that instrumental going forward. All of the
charts/tables we have produced use the abbreviations, so they remain
unaffected. The only change I can foresee is reordering the Excel
spreadsheet form that we used to enter ratings. The order there was
critical to ensure that I could easily aggregate/process all of the ratings
to produce the charts.
. Made several minor changes to the project titles, e.g. I placed
"OSC" & "PPSC" at the end of the Work Team titles (vs. beginning) so that
they would not bunch up when alphabetized. There were a few other naming
inconsistencies between the Tables and Short Descriptions which I caught and
fixed in this step. Please double-check my work and let me know if there
are other changes you would like to make.
. Moved Fast Flux [FF] from Table 2 to Table 1 (Note: I believe
that was a consensus of the team; if not, I can put it back). There are
now 16 projects in Table 1.
3) We spent a considerable amount of time discussing the definition of
a Prioritized Project; however, we did not reach consensus on how to amend
it. Ken agreed to rework the definition and submit a new version for
further discussion via the email list. Below is modified language that
attempts to clearly identify the entries in Table 1 vs. Table 2. I found
it challenging to rewrite the first sentence to embrace all of the
exceptions, so I added another sentence to specify the exclusions. Please
let me know if this approach is acceptable or I should go back to the
drawing board and try something else...
A Prioritized Project is initiated by a GNSO Council decision to commit
community and staff resources with the expectation that such efforts will
impact the GNSO's overall work capacity sufficient to warrant its relative
placement among all other prioritized projects. For the purposes of GNSO
Work Prioritization, Prioritized Projects do not include those whose status
has been determined to be Inactive, Monitor, Pending, or Implem as outlined
below:
. Community Pending ("Pending"): the work effort has been put on
hold status and is waiting on or pending another action (e.g. Staff report)
or decision (e.g. Council motion) and is not currently consuming community
resources.
. Monitor Only ("Monitor"): 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).
. Not a GNSO Project ("Inactive"): the work effort is not or not
yet a GNSO initiative and cannot be properly evaluated (ranked/rated) and
prioritized by the Council.
. Implementation Phase ("Implem"): the work effort has completed
the recommendation phase, has been approved, and is ready to begin or has
already started implementation. While it is not consuming large amounts of
community resources, the Council needs to understand the impact on Staff as
it considers the adoption of new project work within the GNSO.
A Prioritized Project commences when chartered or otherwise commissioned by
the GNSO Council and terminates when the Working Group or team's final
output(s)/recommendation(s) have been approved by the Council. Examples of
Prioritized Projects include, but are not limited to: policy development
initiatives and requests made by the Board (e.g. GNSO Improvements) and/or
other SO/AC.
Next Session: 26, 28, or 29 January (TBD-Doodle coming). It was suggested
that we continue where we left off on the agenda. Items remaining:
1) Two-dimensional model:
a) Should Y and X be rated by different parties (e.g. Council and
Staff) to avoid cross-correlation between the dimensions?
2) Ratings scale 1-7 from Far Below Average to Far Above Average:
a) Is the team still OK with the 7 point scale for both dimensions?
3) Individual vs. Group Ratings:
a) What is the team's assessment of the pros/cons between individual
vs. group ratings?
b) If we settle on group sessions only, would we recommend that
Councilors complete individual ratings first? Would they be submitted and
analyzed for commonality as we did in our test?
c) If group ratings are preferential, what sizes and configurations
would the team recommend?
d) Should this WPM-DT perform another sequence of tests using smaller
groups (e.g. 2 or 3)?
Considerations from a previous summary:
. After having rated all 15 projects both individually and in one
large group (of 5), what new information might be learned by breaking into
smaller groups of 2-3?
. What, if any, criteria, should be applied in constructing small
groups? For example: (a) experience/knowledge (pairing senior Councilor
with new member); (b) heterogeneous or homogeneous by Constituency and/or
SG; (c) contracted party vs. non-contracted; . others?
. If small groups are constructed, should they be facilitated by
Staff using an Adobe Connect room or should individuals get together
independently to discuss and agree upon ratings to be submitted (e.g. using
form similar to the one provided earlier for individual ratings)?
e) Should GNSO Council rating sessions be facilitated (by Staff?) using
Adobe Connect with polling feature?
Forward Glance: Unless the team elects to perform additional testing after
Step 5, the next area of focus (Step 6) is HOW to utilize the data in terms
of developing a prioritization -- the ultimate goal of this effort.
If there is anything else that I might do in preparation for our next
session or beyond, please let me know.
Regards,
Ken Bour
Attachment:
GNSO WPM Projects & Short Descriptions (KBv4).doc
|