Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: KB Thoughts on How to Finish by 13 April 2010!

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian,
Ken has worked with the working group and his involvement is highly valued.
MP3 recordings and meeting minutes, also the email list, are available for
you to review.
You also were welcome to join our weekly conference calls and you could have
proposed your own ideas in the search of a constructive work.
I am available for providing you details of the work done so far.
Regards
Olga




2010/3/6 Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> Respectfully, I do not think the question is a fair one or one that should
> be answered directly.  I do appreciate your concern about the duration  of
> this effort, and suggest that you discuss your concern about the state of
> progress of the group with the Working Group chair.
>
>
>
> If you have a concern about the work or performance of a GNSO staff member
> (or our consultants), please contact me directly, or our Vice President,
> David Olive.  David’s email is  david.olive@xxxxxxxxx.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Liz
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Stéphane Van Gelder
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:47 PM
> *To:* gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Ken Bour; Adrian Kinderis
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: KB Thoughts on How to Finish by 13 April
> 2010!
>
>
>
> Group.
>
>
>
> Please note the message I am forwarding from Adrian Kinderis.
>
>
>
> Adrian would like to ask: "How is Ken Bour remunerated? If I understand
> correctly, he is a contractor for ICANN. Does this mean he is on an hourly
> rate? If so, it is no surprise to me that this work prioritisation has taken
> 6 months and is still not concluded."
>
>
>
> As Adrian has withdrawn from this group, he asked that I pass his question
> along.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> Le 6 mars 2010 à 14:42, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>
>
>  Thanks Ken. please see my comments below. I did not yet have a chance to
> go through your draft GOP doc.
>
>
>
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *Von:* owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] *Im
> Auftrag von *Ken Bour
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 5. März 2010 23:06
> *An:* gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Betreff:* [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: KB Thoughts on How to Finish by 13 April
> 2010!
>
> WPM Members:
>
>
>
> I have been thinking hard about the team’s most recent strategic decision
> to complete all of its tasks/activities and deliver its final product to the
> GNSO Council by 13 April 2010 (approx. 5 weeks)!
>
>
>
> As I think about this problem tactically, if we were to start documenting
> the actual deliverable, chapter by chapter, it will quickly become apparent
> where we have decisions left to make or gaps/holes in the process.  [WUK:
> ] Ken, I'd like to encourage you to put all these open points on a list.
> This will bring transparency to the team regarding the work to be done.  We
> can then move expeditiously to address them individually and document those
> decisions immediately in the deliverable.   [WUK: ] This should be started
> immediately. Based largely on my experience with other teams,  if we
> consume another 3-4 weeks to continue discussing methodology options and
> alternatives, by the time we reach drafting tasks, it will be too late to
> finish on time.   [WUK: ] We definitely should summarize our methodology
> discussion and draw the essence of it.
>
>
>
> If you generally follow and agree with this approach, my recommendation to
> the team is to move *immediately* to develop a document which I am
> envisioning as a new section of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP).   To
> start the ball rolling in this direction, I have begun to compile a set of
> procedural material, copied/pasted from previous meeting summaries, that I
> propose to become: *Section 6. Work Prioritization*.  *[Note:  for those
> familiar with the GOP, Section 5 has been tentatively reserved for SOI/DOI
> procedures being developed by the GCOT.]*
>
>
>
> Attached, then, is my very first DRAFT in which I outlined many (and I hope
> most) of the topics/sections that should be covered in a set of GNSO Work
> Prioritization procedures.   I will continue working on it as time permits;
> but, since our meeting is Sunday morning (for me), I may not be able to
> progress much further before that session.
>
>
>
> *DISCLAIMER*:  Please note that there are several sections which are 
> *extremely
> rough* and are not meant to be anything more (at this time) than content
> placeholders.   In many cases (especially in the methodology section), I
> simply dropped in raw unedited text with the intent to rewrite it later.
> For starters, I just wanted to make sure that we have the major section
> buckets identified so that I/we can begin filling in the material and
> editing/polishing for clarity, accuracy, and completeness.
>
>
>
> In my humble view, if we work our way systematically through
> writing/editing each section, one at a time, we might be able to finish it
> in 5 weeks’ time although we will have to proceed diligently and maybe on a
> rigorous timeline.   Of course, I expect to perform the heavy lifting when
> it comes to drafting content utilizing the team, primarily, to critique and
> edit.
>
>
>
> I welcome your thoughts.  While I am not panicking just yet, I see it as a
> very ambitious goal and, once it occurred to me as a potential way out of
> the thicket, I wanted to get started right away...  Perhaps we can begin
> working on the overall outline and maybe even tackle one or more sections in
> Nairobi.
>
>
>
> I look forward to our working session on Sunday.   I plan on being at the
> remote hub location in Reston, Virginia for this and other meetings on
> Sunday.
>
>
>
> Ken Bour
>
>
>