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

["Jaime B Wagner" <j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I gave two thoughts to the consideration of responding or not.

 

The first thought was if a response was deserved.

 

The second thought was on the terms and the tone of my response, because I
was feeling kind of outraged and this mood is a bad councilor for choosing
terms. I?m glad I did it, because Olga, Liz and Chuck were able to put in
better words all three considerations I was to make. But I feel obliged in
the name of openness and transparency to let you know where I stand and what
I stand for.

 

1.       Adrian was a first minute volunteer to this group, as myself. He
never showed at any call. After lagging behind the work progress, he came
with the idea of a red team, to do a final criticism and test of the work.
Judging his proposal with the benefit of knowledge of his later behavior, I
think it wouldn?t work, because of the lack of understanding and
friendliness required by a constructive effort.

 

2.       His criticism is unfair not only to Ken but to us all that spent
hours of serious constructive effort. It?s just childish to criticize from
outside when you have the opportunity to take responsibility inside.

 

3.       To Ken this consideration was not only unfair, but offensive and
inappropriate both in its terms and in the open form it was passed along by
Stéphane.

 

It remains to be understood what kind of goal is at stake here. I cannot
believe this is an exercise of pure criticism per se. Unless the goal is
that we should not have any kind of prioritization agreed by the whole
Council it doesn?t makes sense.

 

But these Nordic guys may well think that we are here to fight and  shine in
the battle and not to devote ourselves to the hard and not as shiny work of
understanding each other. (BTW, this is a joke ? even in a time like that).

 

 

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

cel: +55(51)8126-0916

 

De: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Em nome
de Liz Gasster
Enviada em: sábado, 6 de março de 2010 10:56
Para: Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ken Bour; Adrian Kinderis
Assunto: 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.

 

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