[gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
- To: <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
- From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:20:07 -0500
This email briefly summarizes the contents of the WPM call held on 23
Attending: Jaime, Olga, Wolf-Ulrich [Chuck Gomes-regrets]
Staff Support: Gisella, Ken, and Rob
The first half of the meeting centered around preparations for Nairobi and
discussions concerning the content of a status presentation that Olga will
give to the GNSO Council. Generally, the presentation will follow the
outline below. Ken agreed to draft the contents to be reviewed and
ratified by the team at its next meeting on 2 March 2010 (1700 UTC):
1) Summarize processes/models over past 4 months (briefly) to help
explain why it has taken time...
a) Emphasize that team is conscientious about saving the Council the
2) Team's current status including key decisions made
a) Model = (1-dimension) Value with Difficulty a tie-breaker
b) Value and Difficulty definitions
c) Current issues under team consideration
3) Next steps and rough schedule for completion (Q: Is "Red Team" is
off the table?)
There was considerable discussion as to whether the team should conduct an
illustrative Council rating exercise at the Nairobi session, e.g. rate a few
projects on the Value dimension using the Delphi approach and Adobe Connect
polling process. After taking note of uncertain Nairobi remote
participation logistics, short timeframe to prepare, and current status of
the team's outstanding issues/decisions, the general consensus was not to
attempt any kind of structured rating exercise at this upcoming session.
In the formal presentation, it may be possible to explain how the process
would work so that Councilors can develop an appreciation of it if not a
The remaining meeting time was taken up with a question postponed from last
What are the major process outcomes of this prioritization task?
Some of the items captured during the discussion include:
Premise: Resources are constrained as evidenced by WG attendance records
presented in Seoul by Staff.
Premise: The Staff & Community should not continue absorbing more work in
the absence of detailed knowledge, fact, and intention.
Conclusion: The Council needs to begin administering the project workload
as part of its new role as Manager of the PDP.
. The first step in taking any Council action is to prioritize the
workload in a transparent manner.
. The approach being taken by the team is to establish a simple
methodology which rates/ranks projects by Value.
. An additional goal is to provide Council a set of tools to assist
with management of the project workload. Prioritization is only the 1st
step in a sequence of disciplines that needs to be implemented.
. How is prioritization useful?
o Education: establishes community and Staff understanding and awareness
of Council prioritization.
o Resource Allocation: may help the Council redirect limited resources
o Councilors may be informed by the project prioritization when discussing
issues and voting on particular motions.
Olga suggested that the team continue to work on the process methodology in
The next meeting is scheduled for 2 March 2010 at 1700 UTC.
Prepared by: Ken Bour