RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wow. Just saw this after my previous email.

I will simply bite my tongue (to the point of drawing blood).

Good luck with the task at hand. May you complete it quickly, efficiently and 
may you approach it fairly and justly and included everyone's input.


Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistry.com.au

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.


From: Jaime B Wagner [mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 3:53 AM
To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Olga Cavalli'
Cc: Adrian Kinderis; 'Ken Bour'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)

Stéphane and Adrian,

Adrian's example of its own company simply states that "authority defines 
priority". Well, in a more political or less structured environment, authority 
does not stem only from vote or capital, but depends on other things such as 
knowledge and moral behavior. Indeed I think that, for authority to be 
effective, this should be the case even in private companies. Authority should 
not be confused with the sheer will of the powerful. So the chair as well as 
the whole council should base its decisions on some principles accepted by all.

The discussions of such principles, basic as they are, is not straightforward 
and can be distressful. To avoid the whole council to go through this process, 
that could result simply in abandoning any effort, is the reason why this group 
was formed.

I think we made considerable progress, much to be credited to Ken's work, and 
that your proposal of a new ground zero just shows that kind of impatience that 
would impede any progress should this attempt be undertaken by the whole 
council.

Excuse my sheer frankness but I think they go along the same pace of your 
observations and that both are made with sincerity and with the best intention 
of coming to a good conclusion.

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cel: +55(51)8126-0916

De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome de 
Stéphane Van Gelder
Enviada em: domingo, 14 de fevereiro de 2010 20:00
Para: Olga Cavalli
Cc: Adrian Kinderis; Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)

Adrian has joined us. He volunteered to red team the work.

His latest comments make a lot of sense to me. The effort that's been put into 
this work by this group has been immense. But it's not because someone is 
working as hard as he can that he's working in the right direction.

I've lately dropped back from the work being done on this group simply because 
it has become, to me, unmanageable. The reason for that being the extremely 
high level of complexity of some of the emails on this list and of the proposed 
models. While we shouldn't shy away from complexity in our search for the best 
solution, I think Adrian's point about how prioritization works in an SME and 
about the length of time it is taking this group to propose a method for 
prioritization should ring alarm bells with us. When we started on this work in 
Seoul, did we really expect it would take up to half a year to complete. I know 
I certainly didn't.

We asked Adrian to red team. Part of doing that is putting his finger on the 
things that we may not be seeing simply because we've got our noses pressed 
against the problem all day while he is able to take a more distant look.

I think we would do well to heed his alarm bells.

Stéphane
Le 14 févr. 2010 à 16:18, Olga Cavalli a écrit :

Thanks Adrian.
We have been working as a group and trying to see all different points of views 
and ideas.
You are welcome to join us an perhaps bring another perspective.
Regards
Olga
2010/2/14 Adrian Kinderis 
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Team,

Just watching from afar...

I am very concerned that we are not making progress here. As a CEO of a medium 
size company we are prioritising work all the time. New tasks/ projects come in 
all the time and changes are make dynamically. Nothing is set nor perfect. My 
Executive Management team provide input and the CEO makes the final decision. 
To me, that is why we have a GNSO Chair; to be the CEO.

It has now been 4 months since Seoul and we have not seen any outward progress. 
I really think you have aimed for perfection and this has caused delay. Inexact 
prioritisation will not result in business lost, nor staff becoming unemployed. 
We may have small delays but the consequences are not critical.

Let's pick a process and roll forward, understanding and accepting its flaws.

I know I haven't been heavily involved and perhaps my comments aren't helpful 
but I am seeing this process become more and more ICANN like... something I 
thought we were trying to avoid.

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Saturday, 13 February 2010 9:54 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Summary & Action Items-Step 6 (In Progress)

WPM Team Members:

Following is a summary of the WPM teleconference held on 9 February 2010 (1700 
UTC):

Team Decisions:


1)      Urgency:  Jamie and Ken reported on their email exchanges between 
sessions and, after additional consideration during this teleconference, the 
team agreed that, although "urgency" represented an intriguing potential 
modeling concept, to make use of it properly would require an objective 
measurement which does not appear feasible.  The team agreed that 
urgency/criticality should become a natural part of the Value/Benefit 
assessment and the definition will be enhanced to include that concept (see 
Action Items below).


2)      Resources Needed:  Ken recommended dropping this dimension as well as 
the 4-quadrant model for reasons provided in his earlier email (8 Feb 2010).  
After discussing the pros/cons, the team agreed to simplify its model to a 
one-dimensional rating of Value/Benefit.  There was also consensus that, rather 
than discard Resources Needed entirely, it could serve as a potential 
tie-breaker if a decision had to be made between two projects that were 
otherwise tied on Value/Benefit.  The process would be as follows:
Step 1:  Rate all projects using the 1-7 scale on Value/Benefit
Step 2:  If needed as a tie breaker, rank any tied projects using Resources 
Needed

[Note:  Jamie suggested that the team reconsider the terminology/title of 
"Resources Needed" preferring a return to the original concept of perceived 
"Difficulty."  Ken will include this question in a separate email transmitting 
revised definitions for team review.]

Once these decisions were concluded, the team took up another important Step 6 
question, "How will the Council actually utilize a prioritization?

As framework for this discussion, Ken posited that a work prioritization 
exercise presupposes that there is some limitation of a scarce commodity (e.g. 
resource capacity).  If there is an abundance of time and resources and no real 
constraints, there would be no obvious need for a project ranking.  The 
underlying assumption is that, due to immovable constraints (in the short run), 
all project work cannot be undertaken simultaneously.  A prioritization, then, 
presumes that hard decisions are expected based on competing interests for 
scarce resources, e.g. perform A instead of B or move staffing from one project 
to another.  If it turned out that, after developing a prioritization, no 
project ever slowed down, stopped, or had its resources altered, a reasonable 
question might be:  what was the purpose or value in generating the 
prioritization?

Chuck acknowledged that we cannot assume that projects can be eliminated or 
postponed simply because they have a low position on relative priority.  
Looking at the bottom projects test-ranked by the WPM team (e.g. GEO, TRAV), he 
was able to articulate convincing reasons why they probably can and should be 
continued even though they occupy the lowest positions on the ranking list.

This discussion led to a hypothesis that, perhaps, the model may not be as 
useful in making stop/pause decisions about existing work, but may be more 
useful in deciding what to do with new projects that are introduced after the 
initial prioritization is performed (e.g. Vertical Integration).

The first question considered was:  how should a new project be rated/evaluated 
and placed into the prioritization mix?  The team reached agreement on an 
approach to placing a new project into the ranking.  Assuming that the Council 
will complete a full prioritization at least quarterly (TBD), it would never be 
more than 3 months between rating sessions.  Presuming that Councilors could 
readily recall what they did the last time, if a new project surfaces in the 
interim and cannot wait until a new quarterly reprioritization, the Council 
would employ the same technique that generated the most recent list.  For 
example, 4-5 small groups of Councilors would meet and collectively vote/decide 
on a rating from 1-7 considering the same "average project" that was used at 
the last rating session.  Once a median rating is computed from the group 
consensus scores, the new project would take its appropriate slot in the 
ranking.  [Note:  Ken will flesh out this procedure when we get to the point of 
preparing Council instructions.]

Once a new project is placed into the prioritized list, Chuck suggested that 
there might be a sequence of questions that should be asked/answered by the 
Council in deciding what to do with it.  Perhaps the team could create a map or 
process that the Council would use in evaluating a new project vis a vis the 
existing workload.

In addition to assessing a new project, Jamie ventured that there might be a 
political value in performing the prioritization even if there is not a clear 
decision-making role related to stopping or postponing existing work.  He 
commented that a project prioritization can establish for the entire 
organization (top to bottom) an understanding as to how all work relates to the 
GNSO's primary mission and goals.

In thinking about this political implication, Ken wondered if there might be a 
potential drawback to publishing a project ranking.  Taking the worst possible 
scenario, hypothetically, might certain teams working on the lowest ranked 
projects perceive that their time/effort is not worth continuing?  The WPM team 
should think carefully through possible morale implications to be certain that 
a new problem isn't created, unintentionally, that wasn't there before this 
exercise began.  In response to this question, Olga thought that it would be 
possible to underscore that projects ranked at the bottom do not necessarily 
imply a fundamental lack of worth.  On the other hand, following Jaime's 
concept of political prioritization, a project ranking does communicate overall 
importance.  The Council may not want to suggest, subtly or overtly, that 
volunteers should know or even think about any project's relative value in 
deciding which team(s) to join - only their interest and expertise concerning 
the work itself.

Action Items:

In addition to the above summary, Ken agreed to complete the following tasks 
between now and the next meeting (16 February, 1700 UTC).


1)      Suggest draft changes to both Y and X definitions for team discussion 
and approval at the next WPM meeting.


2)      Identify additional Step 6 questions (e.g. group/individual 
methodology) that the team needs to consider.


3)      Continue discussion, as challenged by Jaime:  What is/are the real 
outcome(s) of the prioritization?  Can the team provide concrete and persuasive 
answers to this question that would satisfy others who have not been deeply 
involved with the process (e.g. "Red Team")?


4)      Ken proposed that the team also consider making a recommendation 
related to the implementation of desperately needed project management tools 
for both Staff & Community to assist with the Council's new "managerial" role 
in the policy development process.

Since this summary is already long, the above topics will be included in one or 
more separate emails so that the team can focus on the topics more efficiently 
and effectively.

Prepared by:

Ken Bour