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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jamie,

I have already apologised that a personal email was forwarded in an impersonal 
way. I'm not sure what your email has achieved (unless of course you wrote it 
without seeing my previous email).

I have never questioned the endeavour of the team nor the commitment. Let's 
keep this in perspective. It is weak to throw that as a defence here. Hard work 
is very different to productive work.

In the spirit of "openness and transparency", this prioritisation work has 
taken far too long and, in my opinion (which last I checked I was still able to 
provide), your methodology is broken. But that is not the point nor is it 
relevant. If I cared enough (or had the bandwidth) I would take my points and 
propose an alternative process. I haven't and I won't. So simply ignore my 
opinion and press on. I understand. I haven't been helpful and throwing stones 
from afar doesn't support the process. I make no apologies for that. I am busy 
and have many more pressing issues to attend to. I'm sure I've stated this on a 
number of occasions already.

Please see my comments to yours below.

I am happy to field more emails on this topic but I am not sure I have much 
more to say.

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis


From: Jaime B Wagner [mailto:j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, 7 March 2010 11:09 AM
To: 'Liz Gasster'; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ken Bour'; Adrian Kinderis
Subject: RES: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: KB Thoughts on How to Finish by 13 April 2010!

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.

[AK] >> Actually you are wrong. I NEVER volunteered for this group. Perhaps you 
can check the transcripts. All I did was suggest on the Thursday wrap up 
session that in my organization, we used a particular approach for work 
prioritization. This suggestion was mistakenly as a volunteering for the group. 
I never bothered to correct this as I thought some contribution however small 
may prove helpful. I have subsequently formally asked to be removed from the 
team. I am not offering my services for the red team. I also take offense at 
the use of the phrase "recent behavior". One email, sent to my colleagues 
incorrectly forwarded is hardly a pattern of behavior. This is misplaced. I 
believe I make a positive contribution to the council overall. In my opinion, 
comments like this are not helpful.



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.

[AK]>> I agree there has been considerable effort. I have never ever said that 
the working group or its members haven't worked hard. If you are above 
criticism of your approach then I apologise. See my comments above.


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.

[AK]>> As I have said. It was not a deliberate act. But I agree it was poor 
form.

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).

[AK] >> I have no idea what the above two paragraphs mean. Are you referring to 
me when you refer to Nordic? If so, I am far from impressed.

Jaime Wagner
j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<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