RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
- To: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:24:06 -0500
Thanks Ken. Please see my comments below.
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:20 PM
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM Meeting Summary: 23 Feb 2010
This email briefly summarizes the contents of the WPM call held
on 23 February 2010.
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
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 effort
2) Team's current status including key decisions made
a) Model = (1-dimension) Value with Difficulty a
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?) [Gomes, Chuck] Because of the need to
get this to the Council as soon as possible, a red team should only be
done if it can be done in fairly short order. Because Stephane has not
been able to participate very actively, maybe he would be willing to
serve as a one-member red-team. Thoughts?
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. [Gomes, Chuck] I agree with this
decision. 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 complete understanding. [Gomes, Chuck] Personally, I
think it would take too much time to do as part of the presentation.
Moreover, explaining it will be a lot for useful shortly before it has
to be applied.
The remaining meeting time was taken up with a question
postponed from last week's meeting:
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.[Gomes, Chuck] Agree.
Premise: The Staff & Community should not continue absorbing
more work in the absence of detailed knowledge, fact, and
intention.[Gomes, Chuck] What do we mean by detailed knowledge, fact and
Conclusion: The Council needs to begin administering the
project workload as part of its new role as Manager of the PDP.[Gomes,
Chuck] Agree with this conclusion and those below.
* 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
* 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 where needed.
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 between calls.
The next meeting is scheduled for 2 March 2010 at 1700 UTC.
Prepared by: Ken Bour