Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary: 26 Jan 2010 Teleconference (Step 5-Temporarily Completed)

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ken for this summary.
Regards
Olga

2010/1/26 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> WPM Team Members:
>
>
>
> As a result of our call today (26 January 2010), the following is a
> summary of key actions and decisions:
>
>
>
> *1)      **Preparation for Nairobi*
>
> The team discussed whether it could be ready to recommend a model and
> process to the Council in time for the Nairobi ICANN meeting.  As Chuck
> pointed out, since the cutoff for formal documents is 15 Feb, there is not
> sufficient time to be able to approve and publish a final set of
> recommendations.  Depending on how much progress is made in the next four
> sessions, perhaps an overview can be presented to the Council as a way of
> bringing it up-to-date on the WPM Team’s progress and approach.  Wolf Ulrich
> suggested that the team might also put together a timeline of activities in
> its presentation to the Council.
>
>
>
> *2)      **X/Y Definitions*
>
> The team approved the definitions as drafted in Staff’s 12 January
> summary.
>
>
>
> *3)      **GNSO WPM Project List and Short Descriptions *
>
> The team reviewed the latest version of the document (KBv4) and noted that
> URL links should be embedded in each of the short descriptions, as
> appropriate, to various other sites, pages, wikis, etc.  Liz and Ken will
> work offline to ensure that the links are inserted and a new document
> version will be created and distributed to team members.
>
>
>
> *4)      **Prioritized Project Definition *
>
> Jaime raised the question as to how status categories are changed and who
> has the authority to make them.  A thorough discussion ensued and gravitated
> toward the idea of establishing a “standing committee” (size/composition
> TBD) that would make recommendations for Council ratification.  Corollary
> questions were also raised as to how new projects are added to the list and
> when are they rated/prioritized?  What frequency should the WPM process be
> exercised (e.g. monthly, semi-annually, annually)?  Since the rating process
> is relative, is it possible to slot a new project into the matrix/chart
> without reevaluating all of the others at the same time?  The team agreed
> that it may be useful to move to Step 6 in its overall process before trying
> to answer these questions.  The Prioritized Project definition will need to
> be modified to include how status categories are changed and who makes those
> determinations – once the team reaches agreement as to the final approach.
>
>
>
> *5)      **Multiple Raters?  *
>
> Staff raised the question as to whether or not the X and Y variables should
> be rated by different parties (e.g. Council vs. Staff).  The team considered
> the question and decided that, while Staff input would be useful in the
> process, there does not need to be independent parties rating the
> dimensions.  The team will need to consider how Staff’s input should be
> introduced.
>
>
>
> *6)      **7 Point Scale*
>
> The team agreed that the 7-point Likert scale worked well in testing;
> therefore, no changes or alterations are recommended.
>
>
>
> *7)      **Group vs. Individual Rating Methodology*
>
> The team had just enough time to begin this discussion.  It became apparent
> that the team is finding it increasingly challenging to make further
> decisions on the process methodology without having a keener sense of how
> the modeling/rating will be used to determine project priorities including
> how they are to be encapsulated (e.g. sequential, groupings).  The team
> agreed that, at its next session (2 February), it will temporarily table
> Step 5 and move to the original Step 6 of the overall development process.
> Staff will provide some thoughts for consideration via the email list.  Once
> Step 6 has been completed, the team will loop back to Step 5 to solidify the
> rating approach and its specific recommendations to the Council.  It will
> also consider whether there any further testing needs to be performed by the
> team.
>
>
>
> Prepared by:  Ken Bour, Policy Staff Consultant
>
>
>