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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken,
 
I'm fine with your definition on prioritized projects.
Looking forward to the discussion today
 


Wolf-Ulrich

 

  

 

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Ken Bour
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2010 16:50
An: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [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