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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Firstly, let me apologise to Ken.

Ken, we don't know each other and I would expect you are extremely disappointed 
in me, if not angry. I am sorry.  I am sorry that your performance has been 
publically discussed in this fashion. It certainly was not my intention. I am 
better than that and hold my reputation out each and every day. I am 
disappointed that yours has been questioned in this light.

To play sniper is not my style. I was merely fact finding before taking my 
further thoughts through an appropriate channel. This was a personal discussion 
that was certainly never meant to be every publicly discussed nor quoted. It 
was phrased out of frustration and I assumed that the reader would have been  
able to distinguish between the core issue and the "Adrian byplay". Clearly I 
over estimated someone in this circumstance.

I apologise to the team members and rest of the group. Those of you that do 
know me, hopefully you appreciate my demeanour and directness. I always try to 
play as straight as I can with folks. I certainly would never request that 
someone do my bidding. I am quite capable myself.

My reputation has been damaged. I am extremely disappointed. I trust that this 
incident won't frame me as a person or professional. If it does I will work 
hard to change that perception.

I value my role in ICANN. I value the work that gets done. I don't always get 
my way but I will always speak up about it.

I will be critical of the work the WPM does. I figure you want me to. However, 
you can be rest assured my criticisms will not come from someone else, be taken 
out of context, or be deliberately abrasive.

This is probably enough from me.

Ken and team, good luck with the remainder of your work. I look forward to 
participating at the appropriate time.

Regards,

Adrian Kinderis


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, 7 March 2010 1:16 AM
To: Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; 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!

I will respond.  I think that it is wrong to suggest that Ken was a contributor 
to the delays.  He suggested an idea that the rest of us liked and then we 
spent a lot of time on that of our own choosing.  In hindsight, it would have 
been good if we didn't do that, but that was a group decision and it wasn't 
driven by Ken.  Ken has saved all of us tremendous hours of work.  I firmly 
believe that, without his support, we would not be nearly as far along as we 
are.

Adrian - You may disagree and I respect your right to do that, but I suggest 
that you do so in a more professional manner in the future.  If you sincerely 
think this is an issue, then it should have been handled privately.

Chuck



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:56 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; 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!
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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Ken Bour
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. März 2010 23:06
An: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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