RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM-DT: Summary of 12 Jan 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-In Progress)

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

Thanks Ken.  This is looking very good to me.  I have just one suggested
edit.  In item 3) under Implementation Phase, I would change the second
sentence as follows: "While it may not be directly 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."  New gTLD implementation is directly being worked by Staff
but a lot of community resources are also involved indirectly via
comment periods, meetings, etc.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
        Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 10:50 AM
        To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [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