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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken, great job.
I also like the text suggested by Chuck.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/13 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
>
>